API and source distribution compatibility does not necessarily imply ABI compatibility. I don't see a strong need for ABI compatibility.
On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Will Fiveash wrote: > (please reply so that boath krbdev at mit.edu and > kerberos-discuss at opensolaris.org are included) > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 07:14:56PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 17:01 -0500, Will Fiveash wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:48:41PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 19:04 -0500, Will Fiveash wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts as to whether this goal is achievable and on an >>>>> approach if >>>>> so? >>>> >>>> Would this plan affect other platforms too? >>>> If so, how? >>> >>> If there is any impact to binaries it would something that the >>> Consortium would agree is beneficial to all supported platforms. >>> For >>> example, if the Consortium agrees that providing I18N support can be >>> done reasonably for all platforms then this change would become >>> universal to the code otherwise the change would be restricted to >>> Solaris platforms. >> >> Ok, but it seem that some of the feature may break compatibility. >> Is there analysis on what may break ? > > What do you mean by "compatibility"? > > -- > Will Fiveash > Sun Microsystems Inc. > http://opensolaris.org/os/project/kerberos/ > _______________________________________________ > kerberos-discuss mailing list > kerberos-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/kerberos-discuss
