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

Re: containers/chroot to allow ABI breakage is the wrong approach (was: Remember when men were men and wrote their own init scripts? =))

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:

> So, dear fellow DDs, I'm asking you: each time you see that an upstream
> author is breaking an ABI on a package you maintain, write an email to
> him/her, and explain how much this is bad and shouldn't happen. If the
> Unix community starts to realize how much we're loosing by breaking
> ABIs, I'm sure the situation will improve.


OpenBSD’s libc.so major number is 50 or something like that right now,
because they – correctly – increment it on every incompatible change.

This is not a problem because, you know, we have Open Source, so we
can always just recompile everything against the new libraries.

So I am *honestly* puzzled why you would want to avoid lib major bumps.

Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"

Reply to: