ABI report for Vermillion Devel 63

[Alvaro Lopez Ortega]

Glynn Foster wrote, On 11/04/07 19:49:
 > Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
 >> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 22:14 +0200, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
 >>>  >   Function removal can be a serious ABI issue. If the function was
 >>>  >   previously exposed in the module's header files then it is an issue
 >>>  >   and the GNOME community should be informed [NOTE: 'how' to notify is
 >>>  >   not known]. One easy way to determine this is to search an old version
 >>>  >   of the package for the offending header file.
 >>>
 >>>    I made those changes. That patch is not in the community repository
 >>>    yet, so by the moment we are the only ones who are using it.
 >>>
 >>>    Anyway, being an evolving library it isn't such a big deal, is it?
 >> Breaking the ABI of an Evolving lib _is_ a big deal.
 >> Fortunately this is only in vermillion-devel, but if it was,
 >> we would have to keep the ABI compatible.
 >
 > I'm not sure gnome-vfs is one of those libraries that we really care about
 > though - it's not in the GTK+ and circle of friends dependencies, so there's
 > probably less pressure on that point.

   What I can do for sure is to re-implement the methods I removed. I
   suppose that would be a little help even if they are deprecated.

   About the ABI stability issue, I don't remember who I talked with,
   but my understanding was that as long as it was the gnome-vfs lib it
   wasn't a big deal.  At the end of the day, the ABI is not guaranteed
   to be stable.

 > However, it would be ideal if we could at least keep the same ABI as the
 > upstream community.

   Sure, I'll try..

-- 
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com