On 7/13/20 8:46 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:25 AM wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:41:58AM -0700, akuster wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/10/20 12:37 AM, mikko.rap...@bmw.de wrote:
Hi,
jsoncpp seems to have messy ABI history so I would not update even minor
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:25 AM wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:41:58AM -0700, akuster wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/10/20 12:37 AM, mikko.rap...@bmw.de wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > jsoncpp seems to have messy ABI history so I would not update even minor
> > > versions
> > > in stable bra
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:41:58AM -0700, akuster wrote:
>
>
> On 7/10/20 12:37 AM, mikko.rap...@bmw.de wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > jsoncpp seems to have messy ABI history so I would not update even minor
> > versions
> > in stable branch:
> so are you for a revert?
Yes, I would prefer a revert
On 7/10/20 12:37 AM, mikko.rap...@bmw.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> jsoncpp seems to have messy ABI history so I would not update even minor
> versions
> in stable branch:
so are you for a revert?
-armin
> https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=jsoncpp
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Mikko
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On 7/10/20 8:55 AM, akuster808 wrote:
On 7/9/20 6:08 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
On 7/9/20 9:48 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about this one.
It's easy enough to undo by downstream layers if they care about ABI.
At LGE we do have some prebuilt binaries which use jsoncpp,
On 7/9/20 6:08 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>
> On 7/9/20 9:48 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion about this one.
>>
>> It's easy enough to undo by downstream layers if they care about ABI.
>>
>> At LGE we do have some prebuilt binaries which use jsoncpp, so we do
>> care, but haven'
Hi,
jsoncpp seems to have messy ABI history so I would not update even minor
versions
in stable branch:
https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=jsoncpp
Cheers,
-Mikko-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#85691):
https://l
On 7/9/20 9:48 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion about this one.
>
> It's easy enough to undo by downstream layers if they care about ABI.
>
> At LGE we do have some prebuilt binaries which use jsoncpp, so we do
> care, but haven't updated to dunfell yet and when we do get
I don't have a strong opinion about this one.
It's easy enough to undo by downstream layers if they care about ABI.
At LGE we do have some prebuilt binaries which use jsoncpp, so we do care,
but haven't updated to dunfell yet and when we do get those prebuilt
binaries to be rebuilt, we might as w
On 7/9/20 8:21 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> FYI this "small" upgrade changes ABI version from libjsoncpp22
> to libjsoncpp24 which might cause some issues to people who expect
> relatively stable ABIs in LTS dunfell.
Well that is not good. I did look at the details but apparently I failed
to catch
FYI this "small" upgrade changes ABI version from libjsoncpp22
to libjsoncpp24 which might cause some issues to people who expect
relatively stable ABIs in LTS dunfell.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 2:07 AM akuster wrote:
> From: Pierre-Jean Texier
>
> See full changelog
> https://github.com/open-sour
From: Pierre-Jean Texier
See full changelog
https://github.com/open-source-parsers/jsoncpp/releases/tag/1.9.3
Signed-off-by: Pierre-Jean Texier
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
(cherry picked from commit 65e124eef373680726ac045677cbec7d9080a289)
Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster
---
.../jsoncpp/{jsoncpp_1
12 matches
Mail list logo
