Re: Suggestions for API/ABI Process

On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 16:02 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Also, I think it should be expected that when an interface changes in
> an incompatible way, this should be reflected in the library versioning.
> Looking at libgnomeprint 2.0 and 2.2, one might think that they should
> be ABI compatible since it seems only the minor number changed.  In
> the libgnomeprint example, they added a "-2" to the end of the library
> name.  The glib/GTK+ libraries never use such a suffix to indicate ABI
> change, instead they always bump the major version number.  It seems
> like different modules are doing things in ad-hoc ways.  What is
> the best pratice here that GNOME libraries should be following?  I
> think the Release Team should define this.

Why does it matter? What is the advantage? Is it worth losing the
advantage of most GNOME 2 libraries being 2.something? is clearly different to
and is clearly different to

No massaging of those numbers, other than having the same names, will
make those libraries ABI compatible. They are different libraries.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com

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