On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 00:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 23:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Hmm, you think a version digit or so is enough to encode everything > >> there is to be known about a package? > > > Think of SONAMES in terms of APIs. Two packages providing a library with > > the same SONAME must be API-compatible and remain API-compatible > > throughout a distributions life-time. > > Actually, I think SONAME is supposed to promise ABI compatibility, > which is not the same as API compatibility. Pedantically speaking, you are right. It's only that from a library implementor's point of view, the real ABI (Compiler, object format/ELF) must remain constant and unchanged, i.e. they use SONAMEs to version their APIs under the premise of a constant ABI. > But that's a marginal > issue. The point I was trying to make is that a library can have a lot > of behaviors that do not, and SHOULD NOT, involve breakage of its ABI > contract; and yet can well impinge on its ability to play nice with > other packages that are outside the scope of its ABI. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
