On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 11:53:25PM +0100, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > Question is, does Folly maintain ABI compatibility? If it changes > from time-to-time, how often?
Yeah, it doesn't attempt to maintain ABI backward compatability, and we haven't done much about tracking when we break source-level backward compatability either. (As Sara said, we don't version it currently... unless you count the submodule in hhvm ;) There are changes probably a few times a week, although I'd suspect few of the changes that aren't to new components (usually in folly/experimental) actually break source backward compat. I do think it'd be nice to have folly packages some day, but mostly the value there would be making it easier to use folly (in other C++ projects). I don't think it's going to be all that helpful for people who just want to use hhvm: it's largely a header-only library, so even if there are nice folly-dev packages with .h's and .a's, I'd hope a pre-built hhvm package wouldn't depend on a folly package being installed, since it makes more sense to statically link it. (Actually there's probably not much point to having a non-development folly package containing .so's for most reasonable use cases w/ the library as it is today---maybe if it grows significantly in the non-header-only portion in the future, but probably not anytime soon.) -Jordan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140105034426.ga26...@fb.com
