Re: Gtk+4.0

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:

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).

gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list gnome org


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]