Re: Summary of C++ symbols experience
Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> writes:
> On 2012-01-28, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>> 5. It's still not clear that the benefit is worth the amount of effort,
>> since I expect most C++ libraries to require frequent SONAME changes
>> anyway, which means that the long-term binary compatibility angle of
> Qt has kept binary compatibility since 4.0 was released in 2005. (and
> 3.0 kept binary compatibility during the 3.0 series)
> kdelibs has kept binary compatibility since 4.0 was released in 2007
> so I wouldn't as such call it 'frequent SONAME changes', but it do
> require carefulness and commitment from upstream to do it.
Right, I think Qt is quite possibly the best maintained C++ library of
significant size out there. I'm not saying that the benefit isn't worth
it for fairly well-maintained libraries, *particularly* if they do symbol
export control, which eliminates much of the churn that I'm seeing
(although I'm still not sure what the implications of the inlining of
functions would be). But I don't think most C++ libraries are like Qt. I
could be wrong, I suppose; I don't have wide-ranging experience.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: