On 13.07.2012 17:21, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Branko Cibej]
>> Like I said in my response to this in the other thread -- API or even
>> ABI compatibility is not the issue. Working copy formats, wire
>> protocol quirks, etc. etc. are more "interesting". And I really don't
>> think it's up to us to tell packagers how to do their stuff.
> Well, the reason I bring it up is, if we expect everyone to bundle a
> copy of libsvn with every app, then our hard work to guarantee ABI
> stability is basically pointless. The whole reason to have a stable
> ABI is so people can upgrade libsvn without rebuilding or redownloading
> other apps. At some point we must have thought that was important.
This does not happen on properly managed (U|Li)nux distributions. It
does happen on Windows, simply because there is no generally accepted
location for globally shared libraries. Or rather, while Windows does
provide mechanisms for component registration, they're a total pain in
the unmentionables to use and don't apply co common or garden shared libs.
Which brings us back to my assertion that it's not our job to do what
packagers do best anyway.
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
Received on 2012-07-13 18:35:36 CEST