On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:44:19 -0400, Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > * Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> [2007-03-11 18:13:05 +0100]: > > Why? I understand this may be an improvement speed-wise, but libsensors > > is afaik not really speed critical. To me (as a packager of a distro > > maintaining over a 100 packages) this is needless ABI breakage and as a > > packager I strongly dislike that. Breaking ABI is not something that > > should be done lightly and thus is in this case not warrented IMHO. > > Speed is the concrete improvement... but it's also an aesthetic improvement. > > And... is this really much different than extending the API from a packaging > standpoint? If the program uses the new library function, then the new library > is obviously required. Once you move forward, you can't move back. > > The 'include' functionality comes into play also. Existing libsensors will > break if they find an include line. It seems this would warrant a new major > rev number anyway... so I thought I may as well 'fix' the other stuff. > > Plus there is the issue of killing all 2.4.x kernel support. I guess, no one > change here warrants the move to 3.0 all by itself. But when you add them up, > I think it will be *easier* for distro people to accomodate this in one chunk > than to spread it out over the next 3 minor revisions. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. -- Jean Delvare
