On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:45:34PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 20 September 2005 02:55 pm, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > I don't think anyone thinks that. But I prefer the old way. If we're > > not properly keeping track of our ABI changes and what they affect, > > then let's work on that problem. Symbol versioning isn't going to > > solve that for us anyways. > > Yes, symbol versioning requires the same level of discipline as the more > constrained library version number bumping. If we have decided that our > developers are too incompetent to properly bump library versions for ABI > changes then they are also too incompetent to handle symbol versioning. > Furthermore, even with the massive library bumps, we have still stuck our > collective heads in the sand and ignored all the port library version > numbers. In theory they should all be bumped for 5 -> 6 as well. Which is impossible to do since it's a 1-dimensional space and the upstream vendors are likely to bump their version next week anyway. Kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:43 UTC