Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-15 Thread Petr Pisar
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:28:51PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > With the split I'm suggesting for interface/implementation you could move > your installed glibc to any release you want that is no older than the > platform-glibc package used to build all of your installed packages. > And that

Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-14 Thread Carlos O'Donell
On 09/06/2017 03:50 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2017-09-06, Petr Pisar wrote: >> Does it mean that when a need for a new feature arises, e.g. adding >> getrandom(3) into glibc >> we will produce >> a new platform stream

Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-06 Thread Petr Pisar
On 2017-09-06, Petr Pisar wrote: > Does it mean that when a need for a new feature arises, e.g. adding > getrandom(3) into glibc > we will produce > a new platform stream distinct from the GA stream? > I will answer to

Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-06 Thread Petr Pisar
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 08:57:24AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 09/04/2017 07:31 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > What if there is a bug in the behavior of the frozen base-* packages? Do > > we have to live with the bug for the rest of the life time of the base > > (=platform)? Or do we break this

Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-05 Thread Carlos O'Donell
On 09/04/2017 07:31 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2017-09-01, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> I've written up some of the key ideas here: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BaseRuntimeInterface >> >> Any feedback would be appreciated, including bikeshed on component >> name prefix for

Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-05 Thread Carlos O'Donell
On 09/01/2017 10:00 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 09:28 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> Fedora Developers, > >> I am working on a way to provide concrete ABI/API assurances for >> parts of the base runtime. > Note that Base Runtime is F26-only thing and in F27 it is called

Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-04 Thread Petr Pisar
On 2017-09-01, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > I've written up some of the key ideas here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BaseRuntimeInterface > > Any feedback would be appreciated, including bikeshed on component > name prefix for frozen interface pakcages e.g. base-*. > What if

Re: Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-01 Thread Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 09:28 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Fedora Developers, > > I am working on a way to provide concrete ABI/API assurances for > parts of the base runtime. Note that Base Runtime is F26-only thing and in F27 it is called Host

Providing ABI/API assurances for the base runtime in Fedora.

2017-09-01 Thread Carlos O'Donell
Fedora Developers, I am working on a way to provide concrete ABI/API assurances for parts of the base runtime. I've written up some of the key ideas here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BaseRuntimeInterface Any feedback would be appreciated, including bikeshed on component name prefix for