But this seems like a choice for library users. From a packaging perspective, why isn't the issue one of API rather than binary compatibility? Are you not rebuilding packages?
On Fri, May 17, 2019, 6:30 AM Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebas...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 5/17/19 1:14 PM, Andrew Bell wrote: > > Why is this? There are many libraries that have C++ interfaces. > > Which also have difficulty providing a stable ABI. One that doesn't > change the symbols it exports with the new compiler releases, etc. > > Having a stable C ABI is a major plus for any project that uses C++ in > its codebase, it makes transitions to new releases much easier. A core > library like GEOS have many projects that require it, some are actively > maintained and implement changes quicky, others don't. And these make > life suck for distributions where all the projects need to be integrated > to work with the same version of GEOS. > > > On Thu, May 16, 2019, 11:37 PM Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebas...@xs4all.nl > > > > wrote: > > > >> On 5/16/19 11:28 PM, Mateusz Loskot wrote: > >>> I'd like propose to effectively revert the RFC 6: > >>> > >>> https://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC9 > >> > >> Please don't. We'll get more projects like OSSIM that break with new > >> GEOS releases, this causes significant delays before the new release can > >> be included in distributions where lots of projects depend on GEOS > >> (which all need to build with the new release). > > Kind Regards, > > Bas > > -- > GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 > Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
