On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 06:03:29PM -0700, James Buren <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Would it help if a cronjob ran your chkabi script weekly and publish the result at http://frugalware.org/~repo/stats/? I'm almost sure the breakages were not intentional.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
