Re: Gtk+4.0

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com> wrote:
> If soname was changed in keeping with the nominal "standard", it wouldn't be
> that much of an issue. The soname would indicated added API, internal fixes,
> and no change to public API/ABI. No?

Humm.  I don't quite follow.  Common practice for "added API, internal fixes,
> and no change to public API/ABI" is to keep the soname.

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org> wrote:
> > 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/
> > _______________________________________________
> > gtk-devel-list mailing list
> > gtk-devel-list gnome org
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list



-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/