rawhide report: 20051110 changes
Chris Adams
cmadams at hiwaay.net
Thu Nov 10 21:10:06 UTC 2005
Once upon a time, Avi Kivity <avi at argo.co.il> said:
> Thomas M Steenholdt wrote:
> >sometimes updating a shared library breaks the interface
>
> if the interface was broken. surly more than a rebuild would be
> required. the application using the library would need to be updated.
API != ABI (like kernel modules).
> >or possibly even adds new features that we want.
>
> if we use the new feaures we need to update the code in the library's
> users. if we don't, why is a rebuild required?
Some programs will have support for new library versions before Fedora
lands the new version (maybe the new library was in testing for a while
for example). A rebuild will automatically pick up the new features and
use them.
> seems a lot of churn for a minor release. library authors should care
> more. designing binary compatible capable interfaces is not that hard.
The OpenSSL project doesn't really support shared libraries or seem to
care about an ABI at all; every minor version (and some patch levels)
break the ABI.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list