Ok, thanks for the explanation Pieter.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > In commit 6f1d11, "Problem: 4.1 broke the ABI yet did not bump ABI > number" and then commit cac0f9 > (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743508). > > The 4.1 breakage was the size of the zmq_msg_t I believe. A quick diff > of the API in zmq.h doesn't show other breaks. (Only new stuff.) > Arguably the ABI update wasn't justified. > > The 3->4 update was probably justified, even though the methods > affected weren't core ones. > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Dylan Cali <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I wanted to confirm that the ABI across zeromq 3 and 4 is compatible >> (i.e. new functions were only added, existing function >> signatures/semantics have not changed). >> >> If so, I'm curious why the soname major version has been updated, >> first from 3 -> 4, and now from 4 -> 5? I thought soname major >> version changes should only be done to signify a new incompatible ABI, >> that is either existing signatures have changed, or existing semantics >> have changed. >> >> Thanks, >> Dylan >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
