Re: Future of Linux (.so contracts)

1998-11-21 Thread Bruce Stephens
Davide Bolcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The concept seems very interesting to me, although I wonder if it is within the scope of LSB; I had the notion that its effort was concerned with standardizing existing development approaches. Probably it's not [it being TenDRA]. On the other hand,

Re: Future of Linux (.so contracts)

1998-11-17 Thread Davide Bolcioni
Bruce Stephens wrote: Davide Bolcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we say a library is a collection of functions which have a signature and an implementation, the notion of change becomes: 1 - an implementation change which preserves the signature; 2 - a signature change (which may be

Re: Future of Linux (.so contracts)

1998-11-17 Thread Davide Bolcioni
Christopher Hassell wrote: On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Davide Bolcioni wrote: ] ] ... ] This is so that every app doesnt install their own version of python ] just in case. That could be extended to all interpreters and some ] libraries probably and a farmed out approach

Re: Future of Linux (.so contracts)

1998-11-13 Thread Bruce Stephens
Davide Bolcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we say a library is a collection of functions which have a signature and an implementation, the notion of change becomes: 1 - an implementation change which preserves the signature; 2 - a signature change (which may be construed as a deletion

Re: Future of Linux (.so contracts)

1998-11-12 Thread Davide Bolcioni
Alan Cox wrote: ... This is so that every app doesnt install their own version of python just in case. That could be extended to all interpreters and some libraries probably and a farmed out approach would IMHO be good. This is a notion of software contract, if I understand correctly: a