Re: Gtk+4.0

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

I also think bumping soname every six months would be disaster.  It
was painful enough when libstdc++, libpng, libssl, etc changed soname
every few years.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
<pochu27 gmail com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote:
> > I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0[1]? So I'm trying to
> > write about my thoughts, in a careful way. In the first moment, I thought
> > this is a good idea and just the numbering is misleading. Stability is what
> > developers want, we need it, we love it. With a few days distance,
> > numbering is just a small issue, I see this now entirely different and
> > three major issues:
>
> Here are some thoughts I have about all this, from a downstream maintainer POV.
>
> My concern with this new scheme is that GTK+ libraries will have to bump the
> soname every 6 months (if they want to support the latest GTK+). That can be
> manageable for say vte or gnome-desktop, although it may be bad if some third
> party apps pick a dependency on the vte for GTK+ 4.2 but don't update it for
> GTK+ 4.4, as then distros would need to ship an increasing number of versions
> that are unlikely to get any support upstream.
>
> But do you expect WebKitGTK+ to bump the ABI every 6 months?
>
> I feel like the X.[024] releases are just snapshots of a development branch,
> with X.6 being the stable release, and I wonder if X.[024] shouldn't clearly be
> labelled as that, regardless of what version number is chosen (be it 4.0,
> 3.99.0, 4.0beta1 or whatever).
>
> Cheers,
> Emilio
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list



-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/