On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > OpenBSD’s libc.so major number is 50 or something like that right now,
> > because they – correctly – increment it on every incompatible change.
>
> The correct thing to do is to not do incompatible change.
No, in the interest of software hygiene it
On 24/10/14 10:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/21/2014 05:12 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
OpenBSD’s libc.so major number is 50 or something like that right now,
because they – correctly – increment it on every incompatible change.
The correct thing to do is to not do incompatible change.
A won
On 10/21/2014 05:12 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> So, dear fellow DDs, I'm asking you: each time you see that an upstream
>> author is breaking an ABI on a package you maintain, write an email to
>> him/her, and explain how much this is bad and should
Gregory Smith dixit:
>They say you're a hard nose, skeptical, untrusting, old unix admin and
>programmer from the old days and you do not take one ounce of
My old days were on DOS¹. I am a relative newcomer to the Unix world,
starting about 1999. But I grew up with the “old values”, including
the
Konstantin Khomoutov dixit:
>Sometimes we have to run software which is neither Open Source nor Free
>on our systems which are (luckily) Open Source and Free.
Things like f-prot are shipped statically linked, when in their
binary form for OpenBSD. And binary compatibility only goes so
far either
5 matches
Mail list logo
