Comments on: ABI breakage and package naming http://hircus.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/abi-breakage-and-package-naming/ Michel explores computing and assorted gadgetries Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:37:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Andrey Ponomarenko http://hircus.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/abi-breakage-and-package-naming/#comment-4837 Andrey Ponomarenko Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:51:18 +0000 http://hircus.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-4837 To avoid unexpected ABI breaks may be used tools for static comparison of old library code with a new one, such as free ABI-compliance-checker from http://ispras.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker To avoid unexpected ABI breaks may be used tools for static comparison of old library code with a new one, such as free ABI-compliance-checker from http://ispras.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker

]]> By: hircus http://hircus.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/abi-breakage-and-package-naming/#comment-4706 hircus Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:44:37 +0000 http://hircus.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-4706 My mistake (must have confused you with someone else.. sorry!). Incidentally, this explains the Romanian posts on your blog. Upgrading to Firefox 3 beta 5 is not necessary, I agree. I suppose the maintainer want to avoid having to deal with three versions (Firefox 1.5 for RHEL 4, 2.0 for RHEL 5 and 3 for Fedora). The problem with the current naming scheme is that it just *invites* compatibility problems to recur from time to time. Having libraries be parallel-installable didn't use to be much of a problem in the past, but with the divergence between RHEL and Fedora release cycles, this is becoming more of an issue. My mistake (must have confused you with someone else.. sorry!). Incidentally, this explains the Romanian posts on your blog.

Upgrading to Firefox 3 beta 5 is not necessary, I agree. I suppose the maintainer want to avoid having to deal with three versions (Firefox 1.5 for RHEL 4, 2.0 for RHEL 5 and 3 for Fedora).

The problem with the current naming scheme is that it just *invites* compatibility problems to recur from time to time. Having libraries be parallel-installable didn’t use to be much of a problem in the past, but with the divergence between RHEL and Fedora release cycles, this is becoming more of an issue.

]]> By: Béranger http://hircus.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/abi-breakage-and-package-naming/#comment-4705 Béranger Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:44:08 +0000 http://hircus.wordpress.com/?p=230#comment-4705 NO, I am NOT Daniel Béranger. I am not who you think I am. Please do your homework. Compatibility packages CAN be released and the dependent applications (Eclipse) CAN be rebuilt against them NO MATTER what package naming scheme you adopt. It's just a matter of willing to do it, because there is always more than one solution. BTW, Firefox 2 is supported till end-2008, so the upgrade to Firefox3 BETA5 was NOT mandatory for RHEL 5.2. OTOH, Red Hat hat a LOT of time to figure out a solution for the package naming and/or compatibility packages. NO, I am NOT Daniel Béranger. I am not who you think I am. Please do your homework.

Compatibility packages CAN be released and the dependent applications (Eclipse) CAN be rebuilt against them NO MATTER what package naming scheme you adopt. It’s just a matter of willing to do it, because there is always more than one solution.

BTW, Firefox 2 is supported till end-2008, so the upgrade to Firefox3 BETA5 was NOT mandatory for RHEL 5.2.

OTOH, Red Hat hat a LOT of time to figure out a solution for the package naming and/or compatibility packages.

]]>