> Well, you can count on the distro guys reminding you that your bug fix just > broke 100 packages on their build server ;)
I wouldn't be so sure, I've already seen packages that had broken binary compatibility and nobody had seen it till some user had found that hist program stopped working. > KDE for example uses the first number for source compatibility, the second > for > binary compatibility and the third for bug-fixes. Would it be too hard to >follow > > a similar model? KDE guys work very hard to maintain binary compatibility, in fact they break it in only major releases, similarly to what Qt does. Maintaining binary compatibility is very hard in C++, in fact, if you use Boost you can't even promise it as Boost break it **every** release. For my project CppCMS I have very strict policy to maintain such compatibility: See: http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/wikipp/en/page/cppcms_1x_coding_standards#Keeping+backward+compatible+ABI And SOCI is not built in this way. Artyom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Soci-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
