Plan for Today's (20070625) Release Engineering meeting

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 10:47 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:44:42AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 03:00 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 08:36:00PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > On Monday 25 June 2007 20:31:51 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > > If for example glibc has been updated yum update foo will not pull it
> > > > > in. Try it.
> > > > 
> > > > If it has been updated and the new update of foo will not run
> > > > without the newer glibc and there are no rpm requirements on said
> > > > newer glibc libraries, we've got much bigger issues.
> > > 
> > > True, but that's everyday's packaging business and is called "lack of
> > > forward compatibiliy in libraries". Actually that was the reason for
> > > having to build against only securty updates onstead of the whole
> > > update repo given in the trimmed away quote of mine.
> > > 
> > > Now to get to real example: Replace glibc with glib/gtk and friends,
> > > that keep the same soname since Moses' birth and add symbols on the
> > > row. You can build something on F7's glib and from a packaging POV it
> > > will still fit into FC5 or FC4, but when the app runs it will break
> > > with missing g* calls.
> > 
> > As far as "glib, gtk and friends" are concerned, these do not at 
> > any symbols in a stable branch, and Fedora release stay on a stable
> > branch, so your snide remarks are uncalled for, as far as these are
> > concerned.
> 
> I'm sorry, but history says otherwise. Symbols have been added to
> *stable* releases, and many application were breaking when used on a
> previous *stable* release.

Care to provide a concrete example of a symbol that has been added in a
stable series, breaking applications ? I can't think of any.