Re: NetworkManager 0.7 Released

[Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd luon net>]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 12:05:15PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 15:02 +0100, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:50:40PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 22:59 +0100, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> > > Well... libnm-util did, but libnm-util for 0.6 was only meant to be used
> > > between the applet and NM itself.  libnm_glib ABI/API should be the same
> > > between 0.6 and 0.7, because the 0.7 libnm_glib actually includes all of
> > > the 0.6 libnm_glib.
> > 
> > The NM applet is still an external application though and libnm-util is
> > still a proper library. So proper library versioning is still something
> > that needs to be done. Especially if nothing actually used it, then bumping
> > the soname shouldn't be a hassle.
> 
> I understand how it's supposed to work, yes, but if we don't break the
> ABI/API going forward past 0.7, should we bump the soname and require a
> recompile of everything that uses libnm-util and libnm-glib now?  Or
> just tell distros to set up a symlink?

I don't understand the symlink comment.. I don't know how many distributions
are already shipping NM 0.7 with the current sonames. Obviously if you're going
to bump the soname, it should be done asap to minimize transition pain.

Pratically, once people have started shipping a library with a new ABI but
without a soname bump, you've already lost. Imho it still makes sense to bump
the soname now and have those that shipped 0.7 very early go through the little
bit of pain a soname transitions gives. As it will smoothen the 0.6 => 0.7
transition for those that still have to do that. But obviously i'm slightly
biased here as Debian tends to care more about these things then most other
distributions :)

  Sjoerd
-- 
Life may have no meaning, or, even worse, it may have a meaning of which
you disapprove.