I keep seeing carelessness with version bumps for packages in the main groups (not suffixed with -extra). Since 1.7, there has been two main examples of this. ffmpeg by Devil505 and a series of others done by DeX77.
I know we are in the development stage right now, but can we at least not break ABI in current? This is a common issue and one we can plan for, so why don't we use WIPs for ABI rebuilds? I know it's more hassle, but doing so would make things run smoother. I myself do this for core changes, such as when I had to break libudev ABI to upgrade systemd. So why can't this be a routine practice for at least libraries in a main group? So, bottom line is that i would to propose a new rule governing ABI breakage. It is below, so please read it there. Thoughts? No package change may be done directly in current if it would result in ABI breakage in a package residing in a main group (not suffixed with -extra). To check if the ABI is broken, run fpmdiff on the old FPM vs the new FPM. The ABI is broken when the first number is changed. Below are some examples of where the ABI is broken and when it is not. Examples: libfoo.so.1.0.0 -> libfoo.so.1.1.0 (ABI is not broken) libfoo.so.1.0.0 -> libfoo.so.1.0.1 (ABI is not broken) libfoo.so.1.0.0 -> libfoo.so.2.0.0 (ABI is broken) _______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
