On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 13:23 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 2017-03-14 13:33, André Pönitz wrote: > > In general, I am not overly sold on ABI compatibility promises. I personally > > could live without and find SC of more practical value. The most important > > "feature" of ABI compatibility guarantee for me is that it limits people > > from > > doing overly excessive source-incompatible changes. > > Distros are likely to care; a Qt BC break requires a mass rebuild of > everything that uses Qt (which translates into lots of users needing to > update lots of packages when Qt changes). Distros may refuse to update > Qt within a distro release as a result, which means users are stuck with > older Qt for longer.
I think this is not a real issue: A distribution will not update the standard c++ library within a distro release. Neither will a distribution upgrade Qt minor versions within a distro release. I do not expect patch version upgrades of Qt to introduce BC issues with or without it relying on std::functionality. Best Regards, Tobias -- Tobias Hunger, Senior Software Engineer | The Qt Company The Qt Company GmbH, Rudower Chaussee 13, D-12489 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Mika Harjuaho. Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
