On 19 March 2015 at 08:43, Dave Johansen <davejohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Rex Dieter <rdie...@math.unl.edu> wrote: > >> Dave Johansen wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Kevin Fenzi >> > <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:00:35 -0700 >> >> Dave Johansen <davejohan...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Is that really true? The Qt 5 package in EPEL 6 has been updated >> >> > several times and I don't recall ever seeing an >> >> > email/announcement/etc. >> >> >> >> Were the upgrades incompatible? You have to manually intervene? >> >> > Honestly, on the machines I'm using, I installed 5.2 and haven't updated >> > since 5.3 was released because I didn't want to rebuild and re-test all >> of >> > my stuff, but my understanding of the following is that the upgrades are >> > not completely compatible: >> > http://upstream.rosalinux.ru/versions/qt.html >> >> Fwiw, Qt upstream takes both api and abi stability pretty seriously >> (official public interfaces). If you experience any concrete >> incompatibilities after upgrading, it's arguably a bug worth fixing. >> > > Yes, but doesn't the change in the name of the .so require a rebuild? > > So we can't speak in circles for a bit longer... what .so are you seeing this happen with. Yes a changed so will break a build so if it is happening then it needs to be looked and dealt with. A library may update itself but not bump the .so -- Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
