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 <poch...@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
