Re: [Tracker] ANNOUNCE: tracker 0.9.31 released (unstable)

[Michael Biebl <mbiebl gmail com>]

2010/12/13 Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com>:
> On 13/12/10 03:56, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > 2010/12/10 Martyn Russell<martyn lanedo com>:
> > >  * build: Binaries built now use *stable* named versions only (i.e. 0.10
> > > not
> > > 0.9)
> >
> > So, 0.9.31 is not declared stable yet, but you already use the stable
> > version names. That's a bit confusing.
> > Could you elaborate on this?
>
> Sure.
>
> > Do you expect no more API incompatible changes before the stable release?
>
> It's not really about that. We did this for a few reasons:
>
> - It just makes switching when we do a stable release that much easier and
> less (potentially) problematic on the day.

You should bump soname if the API/ABI is changed in an incompatible
way, I guess we all agree on that.

For the devel/unstable branch iirc the idea was to use an odd
soversion, as a clear indication that the ABI can break anytime,
without the soname being bumped.
Now you are using the "stable" soversion, even if the libs aren't yet
declared stable. That's the bit I find confusing.

And if 3rd party packages start using the stable soversion today, they
can potentially break by future updates of tracker.
That shouldn't happen.

> > And on a completely different note, "make install" seems to install
> > over 150Mb of data into /usr/share/tracker-tests here.
>
> They don't, If you build with --disable-functional-tests they shouldn't be
> built or installed. I didn't know it was 150Mb though, that's quite
> shocking. If the --disable-functional-tests doesn't do it, --disable-gtk-doc
> definitely should.

I tried --disable-functional-tests --disable-unit-tests now, and those
files are no longer installed. Thanks for the hint.

I'm still wondering though, if functional-tests being enabled by
*default* is a good idea.

Michael


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?