On Thursday 17 of December 2015 12:51:42 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > šumski wrote: > >> Yes, bug fixes can do that ;) > > > > Yes, but frameworks are under BC guarantee. > > So how are bugs supposed to be fixed if they break ABI compatibility?
Certainly not by breaking one of core policies. > > If I'm not mistaken Linux will not check beyond shared library file names. > If that's correct, the build system can install a libKF5FMD.so.3 file that > links to libKF5FMD.so.5 then applications that haven't been relinked > should load and run. > > This isn't a typical version of ABI breakage, btw. And I have a hunch that > users who build from source won't even notice the change because > libKF5FMD.so.3 and libKF5FMD.so.5.16.0 will not be uninstalled when you > install KFileMetaData 5.17.0 . It will be different for users who get > their binaries from an upstream packager/distribution ... and it'll be > trivial for those to provide relinked dependent packages. (MacPorts will > scan for and pick up this kind of change, queuing affected dependents for > a rebuild; I cannot imagine that Linux packaging systems do not have such > a convenience feature.) That's not relevant at all. Yeah it can we workarounded though i don't think fixing a cosmetic bug is better than introducing a grave bug. Cheers, Hrvoje > > R. > _______________________________________________ > Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list > Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
