Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes?
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:52:11
Message-Id: 1402764656.16949.7.camel@rook
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? by "Michał Górny"
1 On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:41 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > Considering the libtool versioning, there are two kinds of library
3 > bumps relevant to us:
4 >
5 > 1) when ABI is altered in backwards-compatible way (so old stuff is not
6 > touched),
7 >
8 > 2) when ABI is altered in backwards-incompatible way.
10 The situation is more nuanced. I have also seen the following cases:
12 3) a package provides multiple libraries or entry points, and only some
13 of them have their ABI altered in a backwards-incompatible way.
14 Examples: xorg-server changes ABI for video drivers, but not for input
15 drivers; poppler changes ABI for libpoppler, but not libpoppler-glib.
17 4) a package alters a "private" ABI which matters for a small number of
18 closely-tied packages, but is transparent to normal users of the
19 library. Example: glib and gobject-introspection.
21 A solution to unnecessary rebuilds in these situations, as well as for
22 case (1), might be in the form of subslots as a key:value list, with
23 different users subscribing to be rebuilt for specific keys.


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature