On 6/7/2010 11:29 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 7, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Danny Sung wrote:
I agree. I have no problems with breaking binary&source compatibility especially if
that change will make popt better/easier in the future. But a change in name seems
necessary for app developers to make that choice. eg. what happens if you're building
mulitiple different software packages... both dynamically linking popt, but one uses 1.x
and the other 2.x? The header files would also need something like
#include<popt2/popt2.h> or something like that. Can't say I particularly like
it... but it does those issues somewhat cleanly.
I respectfully and strongly _DISAGREE_. The issue can be best be
dealt with by using ELF symbol versioning (once I get that it place
again in popt-1.17) where a single library can provide _BOTH_
POPT 1.0 and POPT 2.0 functionality _TRANSPARENTLY_ (one the
necessary pre-requsite of adding ELF symbol versioning is achieved).
Doesn't this only work if you're maintaining source compatibility?
(whiihc is good, I just thought you said you weren't aiming for that).
Sorry, not trying to be difficult... just trying to understand. Also
does ELF symbol versioning work for both dynamically and statically
linked apps?
If I rename "popt" to "tdod" (or "popt2" that precludes even the attempt at
doing better engineering using ELF symbol versioning. While I'm
not averse to renaming, I've seen the bleary package churn from
libxml -> libxml2 and GNOME 1.0 -> GNOME 2.0. No way Jose!
Yeah, I thought it was ugly too. But it makes sense... in an ugly way.
______________________________________________________________________
POPT Library http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List popt-devel@rpm5.org
