Irene Huang writes: > There are many projects that use gc, including [...] > /usr/lib/libcord.so Volatile library > /usr/lib/libgc.so Volatile library > /usr/include/gc/*.h Volatile header files > /usr/lib/pkgconfig/bdw-gc.pc Volatile package config file
If there are many projects that depend on this library, and it presumably is thus well-constrained from ever making incompatible changes, then why would we advertise it as "Volatile," and thus tell our customers that we're likely to break it in a patch? Open source does *NOT* mean "Volatile." Please see LSARC 2008/059 for an extended discussion of this problem. I've looked over the author's documented change history, and I don't see why we'd want to count this as Volatile. http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/gc-announce.mbox/gc-announce.mbox http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_source/recent_changes -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
