Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> At least for dev-ruby/nokogiri this is not the case. It checks the
> version of libxml2 it was built against versus the one it finds at
> runtime and starts to issue warnings if they don't match, but it will
> still run.

Why does nokogiri issue warnings about something that isn't actually
a problem?


> So it would be a good idea to automatically update nokogiri after
> libxml2 to avoid cluttering logfiles and cron emails. But the ABI
> didn't change.

Or fix this behavior upstream, if there is no actual reason to
require the built-against version.


> dev-ruby/rmagick does something similar for imagemagick but
> actually refuses to run, even if the ABI would stay the same.

ruby y u so weird?


//Peter