[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Keeping binary compatibility
From: Lubos Lunak <l.lunak () suse ! cz>
Date: 2010-10-05 12:27:14
Message-ID: 201010051427.15001.l.lunak () suse ! cz
[Download RAW message or body]
On Friday 01 of October 2010, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Friday 01 October 2010, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > 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]?
I've contributed to it. And the only mention there seems to be "In the KDE
project, we will provide binary compatibility within the life-span of a major
release for the core libraries (kdelibs kdepimlibs).", which is
- insufficient
- not where your usual 3rd-party app developer will look
>
> > Do we have rules that say
> > more than "kdelibs is BC stable, we don't care about the rest"?
>
> Yes, kind of. See [1]
- saying what I said above
>
> > What's the status with e.g. kdeedu libs?
>
> No BC. See [1]
There is a difference between "we don't keep BC" and "we break BC". The first
is acceptable, the second is lame.
> > 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]
Negative.
> [1]
> http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C++
--
Lubos Lunak
l.lunak@suse.cz
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic