On 08.06.2015 12:37, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2015-06-05, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> The nature of programs written in these dynamic languages makes it quite
>> hard to compare types used in the API entry points of a library
>
> Pedantic note: There is difference between dynamic vs. static languages
On 2015-06-05, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> The nature of programs written in these dynamic languages makes it quite
> hard to compare types used in the API entry points of a library
Pedantic note: There is difference between dynamic vs. static languages
and dynamically vs. statically typed languages.
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2015, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
[...]
>> I have not seen the output of abicheck (I use abi-compliance-checker
>> personally but I guess abidiff is as good).
It's abidiff :-)
>> However, I'm not sure about which changes which are not breakages you
>> mean? I'm not aware of
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos a écrit:
> On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 11:53 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>
>> > I have not seen the output of abicheck (I use abi-compliance
>> > -checker
>> > personally but I guess abidiff is as good). However, I'm not sure
>> > about
>> > which changes which are not brea
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 11:53 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > I have not seen the output of abicheck (I use abi-compliance
> > -checker
> > personally but I guess abidiff is as good). However, I'm not sure
> > about
> > which changes which are not breakages you mean? I'm not aware of
> > ABI
>
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 09:39 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Of course, nobody likes ABI *breakage*. And I agree that if all ABI
breakage could be detected automatically, ABI breakages would never
make
it into stable releases.
The thing is, the t
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 09:39 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Of course, nobody likes ABI *breakage*. And I agree that if all ABI
> breakage could be detected automatically, ABI breakages would never
> make
> it into stable releases.
> The thing is, the tool detects ABI *changes*. Some changes are
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos a écrit:
> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 08:00 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> >
>> > and
>> > here is what stuck to my mind. Others are of course welcome to add
>> >
>> > what
>> > I have forgotten and to correct me when I a wrong.
>> >
>> > To start, we'd like to have
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 08:00 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > and
> > here is what stuck to my mind. Others are of course welcome to add
> >
> > what
> > I have forgotten and to correct me when I a wrong.
> >
> > To start, we'd like to have an automated way to check the ABI
> > compatib
> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:34 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
[...]
>> To start, we'd like to have an automated way to check the ABI
>> compatibility of binaries embedded in packages that are submitted to
>> the
>> updates-testing repository. When an incompatible change[1] is
>> detected,
>> the
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> This first step is limited to C and C++ ABI (basically ELF binaries).
> Long-term, the goal would be to develop and implement ABI checking for
> a variety of other languages, but those tools are not yet readily
> available (or if they are, we don't know about them. So pl
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> We are currently working on a tool named "abipkgdiff"[3] that takes
>> two RPMs
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek a écrit:
> About the name: "package" is fairly generic, but "pkg" is used as specific
> name. Arch has
> ".pkg.tar.x
Stephen Gallagher a écrit:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>
>> > When the "abipkgdiff" command line tool is ready , I guess the plan
>> > is
>> > to use it in a new Taskotron task that, when invoked on a given
>> > package,
>> > gets the stable version of
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> We are currently working on a tool named
> "abipkgdiff"[3] that takes two RPMs
About the name: "package" is fairly generic, but "pkg" is used as specific
name. Arch has
".pkg.tar.xz", Slackware has "pkgtool". So unless you plan to s
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 14:25 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>
> > When the "abipkgdiff" command line tool is ready , I guess the plan
> > is
> > to use it in a new Taskotron task that, when invoked on a given
> > package,
> > gets the sta
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> When the "abipkgdiff" command line tool is ready , I guess the plan is
> to use it in a new Taskotron task that, when invoked on a given package,
> gets the stable version of that package as well as the debuginfo
> packages from koj
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:34 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following up on the ABI checking topic raised in the "API Break
> Detection" section near the end of the post
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2015
> -June/001904.html,
> I'd like to summarize where we stand at
17 matches
Mail list logo
