On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Paul Davis <p...@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote: > If soname was changed in keeping with the nominal "standard", it wouldn't be > that much of an issue. The soname would indicated added API, internal fixes, > and no change to public API/ABI. No?
Humm. I don't quite follow. Common practice for "added API, internal fixes, > and no change to public API/ABI" is to keep the soname. > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote: >> >> 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 > > -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
