3:10 p.m.
I'm going to build polymake 4.8 for Rawhide, which bumps the soname.
I will also rebuild the only library consumer, python-jupymake. If
all goes well, I will do the same for F37.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
4:56 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 3:54 PM Maxwell G via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon Dec 19, 2022 at 14:10 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> If all goes well, I will do the same for F37.
I don't think this soname bump should happen in a stable release.
Because ... ? The new version is backwards API compatible (although
not ABI compatible) with the previous version, I'm going to rebuild
the only consumer of the library, and the new version fixes bugs.
What is your objection?
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
5:08 p.m.
On Mon Dec 19, 2022 at 15:56 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 3:54 PM Maxwell G via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon Dec 19, 2022 at 14:10 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> > If all goes well, I will do the same for F37.
>
> I don't think this soname bump should happen in a stable release.
Because ... ? The new version is backwards API compatible (although
not ABI compatible) with the previous version, I'm going to rebuild
the only consumer of the library, and the new version fixes bugs.
What is your objection?
ABI incompatible updates are against the Updates Policy for stable
releases:
ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged, they force
larger update sets on users and they make life difficult for
third-party packagers.
-- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#stable-releases
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
6:03 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 4:08 PM Maxwell G via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
ABI incompatible updates are against the Updates Policy for stable
releases:
> ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged, they force
> larger update sets on users and they make life difficult for
> third-party packagers.
-- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#stable-releases
They are very strongly discouraged, not forbidden. In this case, a
"larger update set" will not be forced on any user. It will be two
packages: polymake itself, and python-jupymake. As for making life
difficult for 3rd party packagers, there are no consumers of the
polymake library in the package sets of the most popular third party
repositories. And the new version is backwards API compatible with
the old version, so even if there is some polymake library consumer
out there, all they have to do is rebuild. (There are quite a few
consumers of the polymake binary, but the command line is also
backwards compatible, so none of them need rebuilding.)
The overriding concern for me is the bugs fixed in the new release.
I'll bet you a nickel that if you find some random polymake users and
ask them if they want this update, they will all say yes.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
10:05 p.m.
Maxwell G via devel wrote:
ABI incompatible updates are against the Updates Policy for stable
releases:
> ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged, they force
> larger update sets on users and they make life difficult for
> third-party packagers.
--
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#stable-releases
Bumping the soname of a library with only a handful, or even, as in this
case, only one single, dependent package(s), as a grouped update together
with those dependent package(s), is not what I would call an "ABI
incompatible update".
Of course, the more packages depend on the library, the more you want to
avoid bumping their ABI in an update.
Kevin Kofler
493
days inactive
494
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jerry James -
Kevin Kofler -
Maxwell G