Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Could it work to make automatic signatures of imported ABI, and
> > simply compare signatures when a provider package is updated?
> 
> No.

Can you say why?


> Also, can we stop using the term "ABI" in reference to this please?
> It's misleading. Let's call them sub-slots instead.

I think ABI fits well though? The situation is that A DEPENDs on B,
and at some point B changes in a way that A must be rebuilt in order
to run - right?

The only reason that A wouldn't run anymore is that B's ABI changed?

Slots and sub-slots seem to be PMS terms to model this situation?
They could certainly be used to implement a solution, but perhaps
it's wise not to insist on using them when merely exploring the
problem?


//Peter