Quoth Collins Richey: > On 07 Sep 2003 10:08:51 -0400 > burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bulletin for these morons: backwards compatiblity *is* a best practise > > and development objective. > > </rant> > > Maybe you should widen your field of vision. Almost everything in the > open software arena is done this way - glibc, kernel, qt, kde, gnome. > The few closed source vendors (ex. Realplay) who choose to offer their > product for linux fight this battle every day. The only reason I can > still use Realplay is that Mozilla offers binaries and gentoo offers a > compatability library series that allows use of the older glibc/gcc > combination. > > GTK is just following the established path, miserable as it may be. > > Yes, in an ideal world there would be a stable API for everything, and > new versions would not be a big problem. Pigs will fly first.
In the interests of equal time, "the rules" allow breaking compatibility between major revisions, and the jump from 1.x to 2.x certainly qualifies as a major revision. It would be nice if greater effort were expeneded to ensure backward API compatibility. Kurt -- "The voters have spoken, the bastards ..." _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
