Hi, > I'll update the meta info, and also add the new package (probably today).
Thanks for having us. :) > For us stable means rock solid, API stable. Looking at similar T2 packages, i deem xorriso more solid than genisoimage of cdrkit (resp mkisofs). I deem xorriso and cdrskin more solid than wodim of cdrkit (and more solid than cdrecord if for DVD and BD media). Only growisofs from dvd+rwtools has my full admiration for what it does. Our library APIs are kept compatible for a stable .so number since march 2007. I.e. if you link dynamically an older application with a newer library, then it will work with all bug fixes and inner enhancements. The APIs are evolving, though. New calls get added, reserved parameter values get assigned a meaning, ... Therefore, after startup, an application has to inquire the library revision and compare it with the revision that was seen at compile time. Newer dynamic libraries are ok, older ones are a reason to refuse application start. (The revison numbering of libtool would suffice to express compatibility ranges. But Linux .so numbering does not reflect that. FreeBSD is even more restricted. pkg-config can check dependencies at install time but does not provide safety at compile time and at run time.) So for our applications i would claim "Stable". For the libraries too, if our commitment to future .so compatibility suffices. > For classic U*ix like packages, > this usually means when they have no 0 as major version number > component :-) The 0 expresses the fact that we are still exploring the possibilities of our project topic. Many things remain to do. But indeed, our project should start a discussion whether we shall bump up revisions for a better public impression. Have a nice day :) Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [email protected] with a subject of: unsubscribe t2
