[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: package stability



On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:19:50PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >Axel Thimm (Axel Thimm 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

Attachment: pgpcwwQ7n5ISV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]