On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Al Hopper wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, John Plocher wrote:
>
> > >>1.2 auto build another application if depended by current one.
> > >
> > > That is not so straight forward.
> >
> > Rhetorical question: Why should you be required to rebuild everything?
> >
> >
> > Caution:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, John Plocher wrote:
> >>1.2 auto build another application if depended by current one.
> >
> > That is not so straight forward.
>
> Rhetorical question: Why should you be required to rebuild everything?
>
>
> Caution: The following is probably "more than you ever wanted to
John Plocher wrote:
I also wasn't saying that source based systems don't have the concept of
an ABI. Rather, I was saying that, in general[1], processes based on the
presumption of "build the entire system" tend to not detect changes that
are source level compatible but still result in binary in
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Er, no offense,
None taken.
Note that I wasn't saying that the installer (person) would never
wish to be able to perform developer tasks like building from source
to produce an installation. I agree that the ability to build everything
is important - to developers and t
On Aug 8, 2005, at 11:26 AM, John Plocher wrote:
As a result, Sun has developed a "binary model" (and here I do not
mean "proprietary") that puts a premium on allowing things to maintain
compatibility - at a binary interface/API level - over time and over
release cycles.
Er, no offense, but
1.2 auto build another application if depended by current one.
That is not so straight forward.
Rhetorical question: Why should you be required to rebuild everything?
Caution: The following is probably "more than you ever wanted to
know" about Sun's binary compatibility efforts :-)
