Hi everyone, Even if we did not fully decide on the next version number and future ABI/API backward compatibiltiy, I still think this patch is useful.
Therefore, I committed it as revision 1779. Best regards, Dominik On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Alexandre Demers < alexandre.f.dem...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 03:23 -0400, Alexandre Demers wrote: > > > > Since I had no answer for now about my previous email, I'll assume the > > major version number to be the API/ABI compatibility number. With that, > > here is a patch to generate and install a pkg-config file for libpodofo. > > > > Please, note that the .pc file will only be created for system where > > pkg-config is available. I could have restricted it only to the OS, but > > than again pkg-config can be installed on mostly any OS. On the other > > hand, .pc file could be created and installed in all cases, so if > > wanted, this condition could be removed. > > > > Hi, > I'm not a PoDoFo maintainer, but from my past experience, the API > stability is currently identified by the MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO version, > thus basically what it is right now. > > Regarding the patch: > a) please send patches as attachments, different mail applications can > garble "patches" sent inline; > b) I would create the .pc file always personally; > c) does the patch expect any other changes being applied? > Bye, > zyx > > > Hi zyx, > > Indeed, about the API backward compatibility, it seems as such. I've > found this very useful site yesterday which lists API/ABI backward > compatibility for many free libraries: http://upstream.rosalinux.ru/ > > One can find the results for PoDoFo between 0.5.0 and 0.9.3: > http://upstream.rosalinux.ru/versions/podofo.html > > - Not proposing a "stable" number in the versioning scheme should be > avoided at all costs, otherwise programs need to be recompiled for every > "patch" increment to insure that it is still working as expected. > Example: at work, I'm on Archlinux, using Scribus-svn (thus compiled > directly on my system) for the added functionalities provided by the > latest dev version. When I needed Scribus, I had to recompile it for > that small patch increment. > > Another example: Valve's Steam had many bugs reported on Linux when the > libnm team broke their API compatibility without having such a > versioning mechanism: Steam was relying on a given version, the number > thought to be representing the API compatibility had not been updated, > thus crashing Steam for many users that were using their native > libraries once they had received the latest libnm library. It is a > mechanism change that has to be implemented. > > - I would at least suggest to use the minor number as the stable API > mecanism; patch number would then be used only for fixes. By going a bit > further, adding new functions, symbols, etc. is not a problem as long as > the available API/ABI is preserved. Thus, the minor number could be used > for that purpose instead and the major number increment would represent > something deeper (API/ABI incompatibility). > > - PoDoFo could also use an odd/even minor number to indicate if the API > is stable or if this is a development version. > > - Functions could be flagged as deprecated (webpage, doc, changelog or > even outputting a warning when used) if they were to be replaced/removed > in the next stable version after new ones had be introduced. > > - Here are my toughts when reading about 0.5.0 being the latest > "stable", and than about 0.9.0 being refactored and enhanced: one should > ask himself why 0.5.0 was never promoted to an official 1.0.0 and 0.9.0 > to a 2.0.0. The API/ABI is incompatible, podofo-base and podofo-doc > libraries were removed and merged in libpodofo and so on. > Major increment = API/ABI [in]compatibility > Minor increment = new features, API/ABI backward compatible > Patch increment = fixes, nothing added nor removed > > Now, since we are at 0.9.4 and some patches have been merged since its > release, maybe it is time to create a 1.0.0 version, to add some > indications to the merge/development process for API/ABI backward > compatibility, maybe even to name someone in charge of merging patches > for a given branch once a release is out, etc. From there, 1.0.0 would > be the new stable release and a branch would be created. Then, 1.0.X > would be created along the way for fixes and trunk would be used to add > new features until a given point where 1.Y.0 would be released and > branched. Later, to initiate major changes, a new branch would be > created (in-the-way-to-2.0.0) that would become 2.0.0 when ready, etc. > At the rate where the releases are created, I think that would be the > best way to go (two years between 0.9.3 and 0.9.4, a year between 0.9.2 > and 0.9.3, almost 2 years between 0.9.1 and 0.9.2). To ensure nothing is > broken between Minor or Patch increments, we could run something like > ABI compliance checker. > > a) I'm sorry about the patch attachment/inline, I'm used to the mesa, > dri and kernel way of doing this: all emails are sent as plain text, > encoded in UTF-8. Patches are also sent inlined as plain text. It is > easier to read, reply and comment for anybody, easier to search for and > by using plain text in UTF-8, there is no problem to merge them. > PoDoFo's community could have a look at "git-send-email" on that matter. > However, if PoDoFo prefers attachments, that's what I'll use next time. > > b) noted, comments are appreciated. I've been thinking about it for the > last few days. > > c) no other change needed. The CMakeLists.txt changes take care of > creating and installing the file; the .pc.in <http://pc.in> is used as > an input file (template) to create a personalized .pc file according to > the system or distribution at build time. It may need to be adjusted > after statuating about the API/ABI backward compatibility scheme VS > versioning though. > > Cheers, > Alexandre Demers > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Podofo-users mailing list > Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
