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)
>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.
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