Re: package stability

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:19:50PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
>  Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  >Axel Thimm (Axel.Thimm(a)ATrpms.net) said: 
>  >  
>  >>On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 10:26:01AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  >>    
>  >>>Do we want to keep API/ABI stable over the corresponding RHEL release?
>  >>>      
>  >>It would be interesting to have a document that described RH's specs
>  >>in this area. E.g. which API/ABI are more important that others. RHEL
>  >>has certainly kept some parts more flexible than others, for example
>  >>wireless API/ABI on almost each kernel update.
>  >>    
>  >
>  >It depends on the release, but generally, symbols used by external
>  >modules must be kept fixed. However, various subsystems (libata, wireless)
>  >may change.
>  >
>  >With the exception of very specific things (the wireless-tools things
>  >mentioned, which caused its own headaches), the userspace library ABI
>  >is considered pretty much sacrosanct.
>  >
>  >Bill
>  >  
>  Unlike in 'official' RHEL, I'd think the emphasis here is just on best 
>  effort for stability.  As long as we're cautious I think it will be fine. 
Well, "stability" is quite overloaded, so we may need to disambiguate
it and decide on each flavour:

a) stability as in doesn't break in itself
b) stability as in doesn't break other external apps

E.g. b) includes keeping API/ABIs stable and suggests backports. RHEL
targets both. Do we, too?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net