From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8700713877A for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:14:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AE59E0AF7; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29951E0AAC for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com (mail-qc0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 345D733FDA6 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r5so3010050qcx.25 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.44.194 with SMTP id b2mr20860347qcf.0.1402859644246; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.244.200 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:13:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> References: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> From: Matt Turner Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:13:44 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 275469bd-a581-4509-85dc-67414135cf7a X-Archives-Hash: 3091be94f1755d14dd3030c588a2a638 On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > Hi, > > Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot > on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with previous > one. It was because it introduced new APIs which applications could > make use of. Since I believe this is a wider issue, I would like to > know the opinion of our community about this. > > More specifically: do we want subslots to change only when backwards- > incompatible ABI changes are done -- alike SONAME -- or whenever any > ABI change is done? The problem seems a bit complex. I think subslot should only change with SONAME. Packages depending on a new API can use a versioned dependency to ensure the new API is available. I think this covers all of the cases and doesn't cause problems? Let me know if I've misunderstood something.