Re: Proposed Modules, My Take

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 22:38 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
[snip]
> Actually there is a wider problem as I see it with the bindings release,
> namely that AFAIK none of the popular bindings are actually stable in the
> sense that you can send somebody a binary package and expect it to work
> (which is the whole point of stability, right?):

This is your own definition of ABI stability.

Our current definition is roughly "applications will not _stop_ working
when a new version of the dependency is installed".

Your definition would be nice, but I see no point in demanding it while
it is unattainable. I do see the point in encouraging what is currently
possible.

[snip]

> What I'm saying is I'm not sure what the point of the bindings release is,
> as you can't depend on it as a developer. I guess it's useful to collect
> them all together and sync their release schedules.

You are ignoring the existence of distro package management, probably
because you wish that it wasn't necessary. The Bindings release helps
developers in the current real world.

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