://github.com/libsdl-org/sdl2-compat/issues
* URL : https://github.com/libsdl-org/sdl2-compat
* License : mainly Zlib, with various other permissive licenses
Programming Lang: C
Description : SDL 2 binary compatibility library wrapping SDL 3
sdl2-compat provides a binary
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote:
How does this compare with projects like icheck or abicheck?
icheck is fairly unmaintained, since upstream is a former Debian developer.
No idea about abicheck, perhaps you could compare them Andrey?
--
bye,
pabs
usefulness for your project.
The wiki-page with the latest release of binary compatibility checker is
http://ispras.linux-foundation.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker
How does this compare with projects like icheck or abicheck?
regards,
guillem
1) ABIcheck was intended
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 04:57:38PM +0400, Andrey Ponomarenko wrote:
2) icheck was intended for the same purposes as an
ABI-compliance-checker, but icheck has many drawbacks:
[...]
c) icheck contains 467 files and 61 sub-folders;
ABI-compliance-checker is a single file.
I am concerned
icheck may be used for checking binary compatibility of C
libraries, but it has several drawbacks.
Colleagues, I'm software engineer from Institute for System
Programing of Russian Academy of Sciences and we are developing a free
lightweight tool for checking backward/forward binary compatibility of
shared C/C++ libraries in OS Linux. It checks interface signatures and
data type definitions
Academy of Sciences and we are developing a free
lightweight tool for checking backward/forward binary compatibility of
shared C/C++ libraries in OS Linux. It checks interface signatures and
data type definitions in two library versions (headers and shared
objects) and searches ABI changes that may
/ABI_compliance_checker
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang: Perl
Description : tool for checking binary compatibility of shared libraries
ABI-compliance-checker is a lightweight tool for checking backward
binary compatibility of shared C/C++ libraries in OS Linux. It checks
interface
Hi!
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 18:38:41 +0400, Andrey Ponomarenko wrote:
Colleagues, I'm software engineer from Institute for System
Programing of Russian Academy of Sciences and we are developing a free
lightweight tool for checking backward/forward binary compatibility of
shared C/C
--cut--
The wiki-page with the latest release of binary compatibility checker
is http://ispras.linux-foundation.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker
This looks like an extremely useful piece of software (in the past
I've thought I wish there were a tool to do this :)). I'll package
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 07:56:42PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
The solution would be to convince Ubuntu to branch from stable instead
of sid. The problem is that this creates a lot of work for Ubuntu
because they have to backport all of the desired bleeding-edge stuff.
However, Debian
Le jeudi 23 février 2006 à 19:56 -0500, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
One final open-ended question is: which consumes more resources?
Duplicate packaging or backporting?
No, the question is how is the Ubuntu project willing to spend its
resources.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Michael Gilbert wrote:
First of all, I think it is useful to analyze Ubuntu's motivation --
releasing well-integrated bleeding-edge software. The easiest way to
accomplish this goal is by branching from sid. This means that Ubuntu
libraries differ from the stable Debian
Michael Gilbert wrote:
I've read a lot about the binary incompatibility concern between
Debian and Ubuntu.
It is a design decision of ubuntu to ensure source code compatibility
only. Binary compatibility to debian/stable is not a release goal.
I think that Ubuntu's motivation to provide
making it possible to maintain binary
compatibility.
The solution would be to convince Ubuntu to branch from stable instead
of sid. The problem is that this creates a lot of work for Ubuntu
because they have to backport all of the desired bleeding-edge stuff.
However, Debian developers could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
As the official version of perl 5.004 is finally out (I must admit I
haven't installed the debian package yet, but I run webservers with lots
of perl CGI and can't afford to break them), I have a few questions,
comments, and thoughts.
1. In building my own
Hi,
Well, with 5.004, CGI-modules is obsolete, and so the
misnaming of the CGI modules package is a solved issue
;-). (Unless. of course, there is a hew-and-cry about removing the
package, I'd suggest removing CGI-modules from hamm).
As for the description issue, even the one
On 19 May 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Well, with 5.004, CGI-modules is obsolete, and so the
misnaming of the CGI modules package is a solved issue
;-). (Unless. of course, there is a hew-and-cry about removing the
package, I'd suggest removing CGI-modules from hamm).
No real
Scott K. Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My main concern is that they neither bunch up on the dpkg select screen,
nor is it easy to search for perl modules in dselect (I'd like to be able
to find all the perl modules by searching on perl).
BTW, I maintain alias and www-search (and libwww-perl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Scott Ellis, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
As the official version of perl 5.004 is finally out (I must admit I
haven't installed the debian package yet, but I run webservers with lots
of perl CGI and can't afford to break them), I have a few
this since he asked for it a while back. The upgrade to libc6 for perl
can't happen until there is a libgdbm compatible with it though since I
refuse to break everyone's dbm interfaces. I'll also be able to release
Great - as soon as I get some consensus on package naming, I'll try to
put
21 matches
Mail list logo
