Policy proposal for compatibility packages

[Les Mikesell]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> Change your terminology to 'pre-compiled' and 're-compiled' because it 
>> really doesn't relate to code being proprietary or not, only when it was 
>> compiled.  And then you also see why the -devel doesn't matter.
> 
> That assumes the Free programs you're rebuilding actually rebuild against the 
> new version of the library. The #1 reason compat libraries are needed is that 
> this is not the case (due to API changes).

Free vs. non-free has nothing to do with the issue.  It has to do with 
how long you want existing binaries to continue to work, and how long 
you want to enable/encourage people to continue to compile in a way that 
does not use the current API.  There is never a reason to break existing 
binaries unless you hate your users or there is no other way to move 
forward.  But you may want to make it obvious that things should not 
continue to be compiled against the deprecated API.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com