On 12/6/21 7:11 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
That's not actually true, though, and it does not make much sense. If
upstream commits to an ABI, versioning is not even required technically.
Hardly any upstream actually commits to an ABI *forever*. Even if the ABI
has not changed for 10 years, that does not mean that at some point a new
ABI will not be implemented. Even glibc has a soversion (which has not
changed for years, but it has one).
Upstream NSS commits to changing the major version number (which is
included in the library name) if it were to change the ABI. ABI breaks
are fixed upstream when they occur, and there is a CI abi scanner which
runs on all upstream commits to identify ABI issue. The current ABI has
been stable for 2 decades now.
I don't know of any other package that maintains that level of commitment.
bob
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
