I'm thinking of the "current,revision,age" psuedo-standard.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Paul Davis <p...@linuxaudiosystems.com> > wrote: > > 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? > > Humm. I don't quite follow. Common practice for "added API, internal > fixes, > > and no change to public API/ABI" is to keep the soname. > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> > 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 > >> <poch...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote: > >> >> I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0[1]? 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.[024] releases are just snapshots of a development > >> > branch, > >> > with X.6 being the stable release, and I wonder if X.[024] 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). > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Emilio > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > gtk-devel-list mailing list > >> > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > >> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> behdad > >> http://behdad.org/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gtk-devel-list mailing list > >> gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > > > > > > > -- > behdad > http://behdad.org/ >
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
