Matt Taggart writes... > Ah I see the confusion, you are talking about "forwards compatibility" (not > backwards, that would be the case I described). That has always been a goal o > f > the LSB, that's not new with 3.0. I think previous versions of the LSB have > met that goal too, unless I'm mistaken (Mats can you confirm?).
Hmm, maybe I should have had more coffee before posting.... I had Backwards and Forwards swapped http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_compatibility Previous versions of the LSB have been backwards compatible within a major version and when possible across major versions for libraries of the same SONAME version. But if the ABI needed to break for the same SONAME version, it was done at a major version. What will future versions of the LSB do when an upstream breaks an ABI but doesn't roll the SONAME version? Will the LSB fork the ABI or follow upstream? -- Matt Taggart [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
