Sune Vuorela <[email protected]> writes: > On 2012-01-28, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 5. It's still not clear that the benefit is worth the amount of effort, >> since I expect most C++ libraries to require frequent SONAME changes >> anyway, which means that the long-term binary compatibility angle of > Qt has kept binary compatibility since 4.0 was released in 2005. (and > 3.0 kept binary compatibility during the 3.0 series) > kdelibs has kept binary compatibility since 4.0 was released in 2007 > so I wouldn't as such call it 'frequent SONAME changes', but it do > require carefulness and commitment from upstream to do it. Right, I think Qt is quite possibly the best maintained C++ library of significant size out there. I'm not saying that the benefit isn't worth it for fairly well-maintained libraries, *particularly* if they do symbol export control, which eliminates much of the churn that I'm seeing (although I'm still not sure what the implications of the inlining of functions would be). But I don't think most C++ libraries are like Qt. I could be wrong, I suppose; I don't have wide-ranging experience. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
