On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 04:51:28PM +1100, Stephen Webb wrote: > I would be surprised if any unix distribution would change to 0.11 log4cxx > if its API is incompatible with 0.10.
With my Debian maintainer hat on: This is nothing special and day to day businesss with distos: It will "just" invoke a library transition [1], and the new binary packages will be named according to the new SONAME, e.g liblog4cxx11 After the transition the old library version will be removed from Debian. Frankly, I'm really looking forward to have a new liblog4cxx for Debian, and now (as we are still some time away from the next Debian release) would be absolutly the best time for a new release. The new version just fixes so many issues that it really pays off the extra work for packaging and the transtion, introduced by the SONAME bump. (my 2cent…) -- Cheers, tobi [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions > Regards > Stephen Webb > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 4:28 AM Thorsten Schöning <tschoen...@am-soft.de> > wrote: > > > Guten Tag Ralph Goers, > > am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 16:34 schrieben Sie: > > > > > There is a difference between a user’s compile failing vs the build > > > having changed. > > > > And which? Things don't work in the worst case either way and need to > > be adopted. Why exactly is getting rid of build support by ANT > > acceptable for users relying on that, but applying LOGCXX-319 might(!) > > not be? > > > > If I remember correctly, the concrete changes could even be adopted > > using automatic search&replace. > > > > > Given how old log4cxx is I would expect it to be > > > used in a fair number of places despite its version number. > > > > And a fair number of users applied either the available patches > > already since the last release or simply work with master already > > anyway. I can't remember anyone complaining about the changes > > introcuded by that concrete issue in the last years as well. > > > > > I > > > haven’t looked at the code myself but is there no way to keep it > > > backward compatible while also keeping the new changes? > > > > In my opinion this is an unnecessary meta-discussion until a concrete > > problem has been described introduced by LOGCXX-319 or other changes. > > So at least I won't reconsider each and every change since the last > > release. > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > > > Thorsten Schöning > > > > -- > > Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de > > AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ > > > > Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 > > Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 > > Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 > > > > AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln > > AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow > > > >
