Keeping binary compatibility

Alexander Neundorf neundorf at
Tue Oct 5 20:01:05 BST 2010

On Monday 04 October 2010, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Monday 04 of October 2010, George Kiagiadakis wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at>
> wrote:
> > > What about source compatibility ?
> > >
> > > At least for kdelibs we try to guarantee source compatiblity of the
> > > cmake files.
> >
> > I think source compatibility is easier to maintain because it is more
> > obvious when you break it and people generally understand it better
> > than binary compatibility. I don't think we have a problem keeping
> > source compatibility atm, do we?
>  We occassionally do (I e.g. remember fixing a bug somewhen in the past
> that had been introduced by broken source compatibility and people thinking
> 0 is a null pointer).
>  But I agree that generally this is a much smaller problem because usually
> the problem simply shows up, shows up in a less confusing way, shows to

Wrt to cmake files, it's at least not obvious to many developers how they can 
break SC (

> more knowing people, and, last but not least, I doubt there's a sane way to
> having any good checks for that anyway.

Ok. My actual question was: do we guarantee SC ? 
Only for kdelibs or also for other modules ?


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list