| 1 |
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 10:42 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 06/06/2012 10:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700 |
| 4 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple |
| 6 |
> >>> versions of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really |
| 7 |
> >>> couldn't do that (and you should think very carefully before saying |
| 8 |
> >>> you can't, since this directly affects users in a huge way), you |
| 9 |
> >>> can make the slots block each other. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> It seems like you're trying to make glib fit your SLOT operator model, |
| 12 |
> >> even though it's a natural fit for the ABI_SLOT operator model. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > No, I'm trying to strongly encourage people to make proper use of slots |
| 15 |
> > to avoid having mass breakages and annoyances on user systems, even if |
| 16 |
> > it means more work for developers. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> But aren't you also trying to make them deviate from upstreams' release |
| 19 |
> models? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > Broken linkage due to an upgrade really shouldn't happen. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It's certainly not ideal, but wouldn't it be useful to have the |
| 24 |
> flexibility to accommodate it? Let's be practical. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Also think we are not able to fix that broken linkage problems alone, |
| 27 |
even distributions supplying precompiled packages need to rebuild their |
| 28 |
packages against latest version due that breakages before releasing new |
| 29 |
packages to the users. |
Archives