[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Core Consortium


On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:49:13PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:

> Henrique answered your question. There has been some divergence between 
> various distributions regarding the naming and especially the versioning 
> of these libraries. We would heal that fork to increase compatibility. 
> Doing that means that some names and version tags are going to change 
> for some people. Of course we want to see everyone involved bearing some 
> of that load, rather than Debian bearing the lion's share of it.

Requiring us to ship/link against a particular soversion of a library is one
thing; Debian copes with changes to upstream soversions on a regular basis.
Changing library *names*, OTOH, is something quite different -- and in the
first case, providing "compatibility with the old names" totally defeats the
purpose of *having* sonames, whereas in the second case, it still sounds
like gratuitous change to me.

I'm skeptical to begin with of the benefits LCC has to offer Debian -- being
bound not just to an external *standard*, but to an external
*implementation* requires sacrificing autonomy in areas that have been
historically important to Debian, such as timely security fixes and
arch-specific fixes for architectures not covered by the LCC -- and the
wording from your original message set off a very large red flag for me
besides.  Can you provide pointers to concrete LCC proposals of library
renames, so that I can get comfortable with the technical specifics of
what's really at issue here?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

> >On Wed, 08 Dec 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>How in the world does changing the names of core system libraries serve 
> >>the
> >>technical goal of providing better *compatibility* between distros?  
> >>Indeed,
> >>how could this be anything other than a gratuitous change?
> >>   
> >>
> >Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >Good question. OTOH, getting all of us to use a common naming *AND 
> >SYMBOL TAGS* for everything is a worthy goal.  If this project will help
> >with that...
> >
> > 
> >

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: