Re: containers/chroot to allow ABI breakage is the wrong approach (was: Remember when men were men and wrote their own init scripts? =))

2014-10-21 Thread Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Thorsten Glaser: > OpenBSD’s libc.so major number is 50 or something like that right now, > because they – correctly – increment it on every incompatible change. > Glibc has versioned symbols instead … > This is not a problem because, you know, we have Open Source, so we > can always just re

Re: containers/chroot to allow ABI breakage is the wrong approach (was: Remember when men were men and wrote their own init scripts? =))

2014-10-21 Thread Konstantin Khomoutov
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:12:20 +0200 Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > So, dear fellow DDs, I'm asking you: each time you see that an > > upstream author is breaking an ABI on a package you maintain, write > > an email to him/her, and explain how much this is bad and shouldn't > > happen. If the Unix comm

Re: containers/chroot to allow ABI breakage is the wrong approach (was: Remember when men were men and wrote their own init scripts? =))

2014-10-21 Thread Thorsten Glaser
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote: > So, dear fellow DDs, I'm asking you: each time you see that an upstream > author is breaking an ABI on a package you maintain, write an email to > him/her, and explain how much this is bad and shouldn't happen. If the > Unix community starts to realize

Re: containers/chroot to allow ABI breakage is the wrong approach (was: Remember when men were men and wrote their own init scripts? =))

2014-10-21 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 10/21/2014 01:34 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote: > I mean, when I read that infamous guy, Poettering, talking about things > like this: > > http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html Actually, while the rest of your post isn't helpful (or even an annoyance), I'm happ