On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 08:23:25PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > > Hi Hans: > > > > <discussion about 3.0 versus increments snipped> > > > > > I don't agree. I think the sum of changes we are planning does warrant the > > move to 3.0. It will be easier than the alternative, e.g.: > > > > 2.10.4 - drop support for 2.4.x proc file access > > 2.10.5 - new API function > > 2.10.6 - include command in config file > > > > Okay, first of all this is me with my lmsensors-contributers hat firmly > off and my packager maintaining over a 100 packages in Fedora hat firmly on: > > Lets try to split 2 things here, doing a 3.0 release to indicate some > kinda milestone and breaking the ABI. If /proc support gets dropped then it already breaks the ABI, since the ABI is not only about talking to the shared lib, but also to other interfaces as well. If you still keep half the ABI in place by not touching API and soname of the lib, dependent projects will not notice the loss of /proc support until runtime. So it looks like breaking the ABI "on purpose" might be just OK. The question is whether libsensors.so.3 and libsensors.so.4 would peacefully coexist on a non-packaging level to allow for a smooth transition. On a packaging level one or both could be packaged into a subpackage libsensors<major> to allow co-existance. Works well under both rpm and deb worlds. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20070311/911a7899/attachment.bin
