[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Keeping binary compatibility
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2010-10-01 18:19:48
Message-ID: 201010012019.53899 () thufir ! ingo-kloecker ! de
[Download RAW message or body]


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" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]