Adding experimental parts to a KF5 library

[Kevin Kofler]

Ivan Čukić wrote:
> I do agree that is would be a proper way to handle it. The only
> problem I see with it is that the point is actually not to provide
> binary compatibility, nor proper handling of BIC.
> 
> At least in the case I have. Namely, the point is for the library to
> be used *only* for things that are in development - because projects
> that wish to use it have a longer release cycles than the frameworks.
> But, on the other hand, if one of those projects were to release a
> stable version against a 0.x version of the library, it would need BIC
> handling.

What does giving the library a fixed (i.e. unchanging) soname improve there? 
We would still need to rebuild the programs for the new version of the 
library, but our packaging tools would NOT tell us that we need to do that. 
The result is packages that install without errors and then fail to run, 
which is very nasty. If you give it a 0.x soversion and remember to 
increment x on each BIC change, we will know to rebuild affected packages.

The only thing worse than ABI changes is SILENT ABI changes.

        Kevin Kofler