Dalibor Topic wrote: >> It seems to me that we must keep track of ABI compatibility. This is a >> bit complicated, but it's our job if we want to be a well-integrated >> distribution. In other words we should try to solve the library >> versioning problem first, and only then try to build packages with Maven. > > There are two sides to that: ABI compatibility tells us if class A will > continue to link to class B.
I had in mind a stricter definition that takes semantics into account. For example if a method breaks its contract by changing its behaviour then it may be a new ABI, even if the method signature is the same. > I think the stricter criterium (builds & runs tests successfully) is > sufficient, and does not require maintaining ABI information. Then we cannot prevent a library from being upgraded to an incompatible version, as in the Tomcat breakage that was reported to the list just the other day. That should prove that we do need ABI information. Also there are packages that don't have test suites, or that don't run them at build time. Cheers, Marcus _______________________________________________ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
