On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:28:49 +0200, Helge Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Oct 4, 2006, at 18:42, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote: >>> Note: by 'unstable' I don't mean that the code itself is buggy but >>> that the ABI is unstable. >> Fair enough ... that's your definition ... but it's rather an unusual >> one. > Really? I think thats the term usually used by OpenSource > projects. But anyway ;-) > Stability is an inherent requirement for Linux distributions because > they can't change the ABI constantly. Which makes it a cycle of ~2 > years for all (serious) distributions. But at least 12 months. Yes, I agree. Having the ABI change frequently is a challenge for the Debian packaging team, since it means that every time a new GNUstep release is made, we have to recompile all our packages. Is there any reason we need to change the ABI all the time? (AFAIK, glib/gtk+ hasn't changed their ABI since glib/gtk+ 2.0 was released, so any old program that was compiled back then will still run on a newer system.) -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev