| 1 |
On 06/06/2012 10:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple |
| 5 |
>>> versions of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really |
| 6 |
>>> couldn't do that (and you should think very carefully before saying |
| 7 |
>>> you can't, since this directly affects users in a huge way), you |
| 8 |
>>> can make the slots block each other. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> It seems like you're trying to make glib fit your SLOT operator model, |
| 11 |
>> even though it's a natural fit for the ABI_SLOT operator model. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No, I'm trying to strongly encourage people to make proper use of slots |
| 14 |
> to avoid having mass breakages and annoyances on user systems, even if |
| 15 |
> it means more work for developers. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
But aren't you also trying to make them deviate from upstreams' release |
| 18 |
models? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Broken linkage due to an upgrade really shouldn't happen. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It's certainly not ideal, but wouldn't it be useful to have the |
| 23 |
flexibility to accommodate it? Let's be practical. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives