On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Nico Schottelius wrote: > Mike Frysinger [Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:29AM -0400]: > > On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Nico Schottelius wrote: > > > Mike Frysinger [Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:57:42PM -0400]: > > > > distros have long been using 1.20.1 (and thus the associated ABI) to > > > > the point that anything built against 1.19.x is irrelevant. the > > > > breakage seen with 1.20.1->1.20.4 is going to be much much more > > > > severe. > > > > > > Sorry, why 1.20.1 -> 1.20.4? Didn't you mean 1.20.3 -> 1.20.4? > > > > i meant inclusive ... there are a lot more people out there now using the > > SONAME with the new interface than there are with the old interface > > I am not sure how you can count that, but actually the soname bump was > something I just missed for some years and did now. i understand your reasoning for it. obviously nothing can be counted on or backed up with exact numbers. what i'm saying is that it is more likely for people to have installed the last 1.20.x version in the last 5 years and built their code against that ABI than it is they installed the 1.19.x version and built against that. > I know that you dislike the bump, but you can see it from the positive > side: You can prepare scripts to do the migration and you can reuse > them, as soon as libgpm2.so.* is available, as it will most likely have > some changes (and thus some different sonames) until being stable. doing a SONAME change from gpm1 to gpm2 is fine. as long as forward thinking is planned, the API is completely different, and we account for ABI compatibility ;). -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ gpm mailing list gpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linux.it/listinfo/gpm