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/