On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:16:02PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > I know that everyone dreams about a stable API for a library, but I believe > that even an unstable library at this point is way better than the status > quo of having other layers like libapt (which is a proof that even if being > unstable is a pain, the alternative would be worse – and that's a freaking > C++ "library" …) providing makeshift replacements. FWIW, I agree with that. I mentioned the libdpkg-dev API warnings as data point. But I don't think an incompatible change in libdpkg* would be substantially worse than changes in layers (such as deb(5)) which are today being used today as APIs. OTOH, having a shared library would be much nicer for bindings to other languages than a static one. And if that means that the soname of such a library will grow indefinitely due to frequent ABI changes, well, "so be it" would be my take. YMMV of course. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature