Keeping binary compatibility
kloecker at kde.org
Fri Oct 1 20:19:48 CEST 2010
On Friday 01 October 2010, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> as you probably know, the theory is that KDE libraries keep
> backwards binary compatibility. As you might or might not know, that
> is the theory.
> I've found a tool called abi-compliance-checker
> and it has a page with checks for various libraries including ours
> which is not as green as it should be.
> I've also compared openSUSE packages for 4.4.4 and 4.5.1 and there
> are problems too (http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/abi/ for what I
> checked). Let me point out just one,
> http://reviewboard.kde.org/r/2608/ , which I think shows that this
> occassionally happening is inevitable.
> Moreover, there seem to be cases where we simply don't seem to have
> rules (or at least I couldn't find them).
Where did you look for the rules? Did you read ?
> Do we have rules that say
> more than "kdelibs is BC stable, we don't care about the rest"?
Yes, kind of. See 
> What's the status with e.g. kdeedu libs?
No BC. See 
> I'm asking because,
> consider e.g. these errors from an attempt to uninstall
> kdebase/workspace package here:
> Looking at how KDE provides various libraries leads to a number of
> WTH questions, like:
> - WTH is the ABI stability documented, besides kdelibs?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20101001/224142da/attachment.sig
More information about the release-team