On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 11:53:25PM +0100, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
Question is, does Folly maintain ABI compatibility? If it changes
from time-to-time, how often?
Yeah, it doesn't attempt to maintain ABI backward compatability, and
we haven't done much about tracking when we break source-level
backward compatability either. (As Sara said, we don't version it
currently... unless you count the submodule in hhvm ;)
There are changes probably a few times a week, although I'd suspect
few of the changes that aren't to new components (usually in
folly/experimental) actually break source backward compat.
I do think it'd be nice to have folly packages some day, but mostly
the value there would be making it easier to use folly (in other C++
projects). I don't think it's going to be all that helpful for people
who just want to use hhvm: it's largely a header-only library, so even
if there are nice folly-dev packages with .h's and .a's, I'd hope a
pre-built hhvm package wouldn't depend on a folly package being
installed, since it makes more sense to statically link it.
(Actually there's probably not much point to having a non-development
folly package containing .so's for most reasonable use cases w/ the
library as it is today---maybe if it grows significantly in the
non-header-only portion in the future, but probably not anytime soon.)