Re: [Evolution-hackers] EDS ABI changes in 2.24?!

[Matthew Barnes <mbarnes redhat com>]

On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 10:57 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Why was it necessary to break backwards compatibility? The log message
> doesn't say. It mentions that some code was moved into a new library
> (libebackend?), but that alone doesn't necessarily break the backward
> compatibility: libedataserver1.2 could have been linked against
> libebackend. That way any symbol originally provided by
> libedataserver1.2-9 would still have been found. It doesn't matter in
> which library the symbol really is, because both libraries would be
> loaded and searched automatically.

Hi Patrick,

The story behind libebackend is here:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=465374

Basically it boils down to a licensing issue between Berkeley DB and the
rest of Evolution-Data-Server.  We want to limit Berkeley DB linkage to
only those parts of Evolution-Data-Server that actually need it, which
does not include libedataserver.

You make an entirely valid point about at least announcing API/ABI
breaks to the list beforehand.  ACAICT there was no announcement or
discussion of the libedataserver breakage on either list.  I'll bring
this up in the next team meeting.

Matthew Barnes