Hi Linas, On Tue 11 Nov 2008 04:44, "Linas Vepstas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/11/10 Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> I also think it will help us manage API incompatibilities better. I >> think our default position from now on should be to maintain >> source-level (API) compatibility, but it is inevitable that there will >> be exceptions to this. > > Any ideas for binary compatibility for the "micro" revisions? I think it needs to be guaranteed. > I recently discovered that a library compiled against 1.8.3 > would core dump when used with an application compiled > against 1.8.5. Ooh, bummer. The 1.8 series is binary-compatible (i.e. 1.8.x is compatible with 1.8.y if x >= y), *but* only if compiled in the same way. An example of compiling in different ways is if you build against a guile with --disable-threads, but then rebuild guile with --enable-threads, or vice versa. Probably what happened to you? > The linux kernel got rid of the stable/unstable branch idea, > and it's worked really really well. (the reasons why are > widely documented) I'm for it. The linux kernel doesn't guarantee ABI /or/ API stability -- it's a different kettle of fish. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
