| 1 |
On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 17:24 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Also, can we stop using the term "ABI" in reference to this please? |
| 5 |
> > It's misleading. Let's call them sub-slots instead. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think ABI fits well though? The situation is that A DEPENDs on B, |
| 8 |
> and at some point B changes in a way that A must be rebuilt in order |
| 9 |
> to run - right? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
At least for dev-ruby/nokogiri this is not the case. It checks the |
| 12 |
version of libxml2 it was built against versus the one it finds at |
| 13 |
runtime and starts to issue warnings if they don't match, but it will |
| 14 |
still run. So it would be a good idea to automatically update nokogiri |
| 15 |
after libxml2 to avoid cluttering logfiles and cron emails. But the ABI |
| 16 |
didn't change. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
dev-ruby/rmagick does something similar for imagemagick but actually |
| 19 |
refuses to run, even if the ABI would stay the same. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Hans |
Archives