Re: Suggestions for API/ABI Process

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 11:36 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 8/1/05, Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron sun com> wrote:
> 
> > I reviewed the modules in the Platform category for GNOME 2.10.2:
> > 
> >     ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/platform/2.10/2.10.2/sources/
> > 
> > and these include:
> > 
> >     GConf, ORBit2, at-spi, atk, audiofile, esound, gail, glib,
> >     gnome-mime-data, gnome-vfs, gtk+, gtk-doc, intltool, libIDL,
> >     libart_lgpl, libbonobo, libbonoboui, libgnome, libgnomecanvas,
> >     libgnomeprint, libgnomeprintui, libgnomeui, libxml2, libxslt,
> >     pango, and pkgconfig.
> > 
> > So, it seems libgnomeprint/libgnomeprintui have already made it into
> > the Platform.  I can't tell when it was moved into Platform since
> > the ftp site only goes back to 2.7.2 and its been there since then.
> >  From the discussion, it sounds like being in the Platform category
> > means that the library is considered Stable and is under API/ABI
> > rules.
> 
> Whoa...weird. http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fTwoPointEleven_2fDesktop
> places it in the desktop, so does
> http://www.gnome.org/start/2.7/desktop/ and
> http://www.gnome.org/start/2.9/desktop/.  None of the corresponding
> pages for the platform list libgnomeprint.
> 
> So, does anyone know what the mistake was?  I.e. did we list it in the
> wrong release set on the web pages, or did we place it into the wrong
> release set on the ftp site?

Oops. Looks like ftp has been wrong for a long time. We should fix the
versions release file.

I've seen lots of discussion about libgnomeprint* not being in the
Platform and none about it being in the Platform. Furthermore, we
removed libgnomeprint 1.11* (sometimes called libgnomeprint 2.0) from
the GNOME releases and replaced it with libgnomeprint 2.2. That would
have been totally incompatible with the Platform which was widely
understood to be a promise to keep supporting its APIs, even including
such funky stuff as libbonoboui.

This is proving Brian's point, of course.

> > In past discussion on desktop-devel-list, I got the feeling that
> > some of these libraries (ORBit2, libgnome*, perhaps others) shouldn't
> > really be used by ISV's. 

We are gradually deprecating (or trying to) some of our APIs, but not
breaking them. Federico and others are working on (ISV) guides which
should tell people _what_ the various things are still good for.

>  Therefore, it probably isn't okay to make a
> > blanket statement that all platform libraries are intended for ISV
> > use.  How do ISV's know which libraries to use?  I'm guessing we
> > need a separate list somewhere.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com