On Friday 01 October 2010, Lubos Lunak wrote: > Hello, > > as you probably know, the theory is that KDE libraries keep > backwards binary compatibility. As you might or might not know, that > is the theory. > > I've found a tool called abi-compliance-checker > (http://ispras.linux-foundation.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker) > and it has a page with checks for various libraries including ours > (http://linuxtesting.org/upstream-tracker/versions/kde-libs.html), > which is not as green as it should be. > > I've also compared openSUSE packages for 4.4.4 and 4.5.1 and there > are problems too (http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/abi/ for what I > checked). Let me point out just one, > http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/2608/ , which I think shows that this > occassionally happening is inevitable. > > Moreover, there seem to be cases where we simply don't seem to have > rules (or at least I couldn't find them).
Where did you look for the rules? Did you read [1]? > Do we have rules that say > more than "kdelibs is BC stable, we don't care about the rest"? Yes, kind of. See [1] > What's the status with e.g. kdeedu libs? No BC. See [1] > I'm asking because, > consider e.g. these errors from an attempt to uninstall > kdebase/workspace package here: > [snip] > > Looking at how KDE provides various libraries leads to a number of > WTH questions, like: > - WTH is the ABI stability documented, besides kdelibs? See [1] Regards, Ingo [1] http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C++
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
