Em sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017, às 09:25:04 PDT, Matthew Woehlke
escreveu:
> > We are not talking about security problems. What is wrong with running a
> > half-year, or worst case maybe even a two year old version of some library
> > as base for the bulk of the applications?
>
> No bug fixe
Em sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017, às 13:02:36 PDT, Marc Mutz escreveu:
> On Friday 17 March 2017 17:16:39 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Em sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017, às 03:31:23 PDT, Marc Mutz escreveu:
> > > provided the same external libraries, and the same toolchain are used to
> > > buil
On Friday 17 March 2017 17:16:39 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017, às 03:31:23 PDT, Marc Mutz escreveu:
> > provided the same external libraries, and the same toolchain are used to
> > build the two Qt releases.
> The problem is this line here. People expect to upgrade o
On 2017-03-17 12:17, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017, às 02:43:05 PDT, Tobias Hunger escreveu:
>> A distribution will not update the standard c++ library within a distro
>> release.
>> Neither will a distribution upgrade Qt minor versions within a
>> distro release.
>
On 2017-03-16 19:26, André Pönitz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:23:55PM -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> On 2017-03-14 13:33, André Pönitz wrote:
>>> In general, I am not overly sold on ABI compatibility promises. I personally
>>> could live without and find SC of more practical value. The mo
Em sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017, às 02:43:05 PDT, Tobias Hunger escreveu:
> A distribution will not update the standard c++ library within a distro
> release.
> Neither will a distribution upgrade Qt minor versions within a
> distro release.
Both assertions are incorrect.
--
Thiago Macieira
Em sexta-feira, 17 de março de 2017, às 03:31:23 PDT, Marc Mutz escreveu:
> provided the same external libraries, and the same toolchain are used to
> build the two Qt releases.
The problem is this line here. People expect to upgrade other libraries. We
should say that we guarantee our ABI provid
On Friday 17 March 2017 10:19:10 Ulf Hermann wrote:
> Let's just allow standard library types in Qt, and document that the BC
> guarantee only extends across compatible standard libraries.
The Qt BC guarantee should only cover Qt. It should explicitly exclude
compiler switches, libc, stdlib, boos
On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 13:23 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 2017-03-14 13:33, André Pönitz wrote:
> > In general, I am not overly sold on ABI compatibility promises. I personally
> > could live without and find SC of more practical value. The most important
> > "feature" of ABI compatibility gua
On 17.03.2017 06:39, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em quinta-feira, 16 de março de 2017, às 16:26:20 PDT, André Pönitz escreveu:
>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:23:55PM -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-14 13:33, André Pönitz wrote:
In general, I am not overly sold on ABI compatibility pro
> All that more or less already applies to the standard library however
> (probably most distros don't accept a standard library BC break without
> a mass rebuild anyway), so Qt insulating against BC breaks in the
> standard library is maybe less necessary.
This is the important observation. Hardl
11 matches
Mail list logo
