On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 13:35 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: > Hans de Graaff wrote: > > > I think ABI fits well though? The situation is that A DEPENDs on B, > > > and at some point B changes in a way that A must be rebuilt in order > > > to run - right? > > > > At least for dev-ruby/nokogiri this is not the case. It checks the > > version of libxml2 it was built against versus the one it finds at > > runtime and starts to issue warnings if they don't match, but it will > > still run. > > Why does nokogiri issue warnings about something that isn't actually > a problem?
I haven't asked upstream, but my guess is that they are trying to be helpful by letting you run against new versions because this usually works out. rmagick is taking the alternative approach. > > dev-ruby/rmagick does something similar for imagemagick but > > actually refuses to run, even if the ABI would stay the same. > > ruby y u so weird? Well, it seems to me that you have to pick one of these two solutions as the sane one, or you must provide lock-step releases that refuse to build against untested new versions, which means locking in your users. Hans
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
