| 1 |
Hans de Graaff wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I think ABI fits well though? The situation is that A DEPENDs on B, |
| 3 |
> > and at some point B changes in a way that A must be rebuilt in order |
| 4 |
> > to run - right? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> At least for dev-ruby/nokogiri this is not the case. It checks the |
| 7 |
> version of libxml2 it was built against versus the one it finds at |
| 8 |
> runtime and starts to issue warnings if they don't match, but it will |
| 9 |
> still run. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Why does nokogiri issue warnings about something that isn't actually |
| 12 |
a problem? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> So it would be a good idea to automatically update nokogiri after |
| 16 |
> libxml2 to avoid cluttering logfiles and cron emails. But the ABI |
| 17 |
> didn't change. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Or fix this behavior upstream, if there is no actual reason to |
| 20 |
require the built-against version. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> dev-ruby/rmagick does something similar for imagemagick but |
| 24 |
> actually refuses to run, even if the ABI would stay the same. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
ruby y u so weird? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
//Peter |
Archives