1 |
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 13:35 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: |
2 |
> Hans de Graaff wrote: |
3 |
> > > I think ABI fits well though? The situation is that A DEPENDs on B, |
4 |
> > > and at some point B changes in a way that A must be rebuilt in order |
5 |
> > > to run - right? |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > At least for dev-ruby/nokogiri this is not the case. It checks the |
8 |
> > version of libxml2 it was built against versus the one it finds at |
9 |
> > runtime and starts to issue warnings if they don't match, but it will |
10 |
> > still run. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Why does nokogiri issue warnings about something that isn't actually |
13 |
> a problem? |
14 |
|
15 |
I haven't asked upstream, but my guess is that they are trying to be |
16 |
helpful by letting you run against new versions because this usually |
17 |
works out. rmagick is taking the alternative approach. |
18 |
|
19 |
> > dev-ruby/rmagick does something similar for imagemagick but |
20 |
> > actually refuses to run, even if the ABI would stay the same. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> ruby y u so weird? |
23 |
|
24 |
Well, it seems to me that you have to pick one of these two solutions as |
25 |
the sane one, or you must provide lock-step releases that refuse to |
26 |
build against untested new versions, which means locking in your users. |
27 |
|
28 |
Hans |