- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:47:35 -0400
- From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Gtk+4.0
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?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
> 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
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
- Re: Gtk+4.0
- From: Behdad Esfahbod
- Re: Gtk+4.0