- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:29:20 -0700
- From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Gtk+4.0
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
> On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote:
>> I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0? 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. releases are just snapshots of a development branch,
> with X.6 being the stable release, and I wonder if X. 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).
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list mailing list