© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #22)
> ABI compatibility is not a matter of black and white, but even if it were, it
> certainly is not defined by what's in Keith Packard's head.
No-one has suggested that it is. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> The whole *POINT* of an ABI is to keep applications working without
> recompiling them. And it's not a matter of "getting away with it with certain
> versions".
If you mean "bumping DLL version numbers doesn't mean you can change the behaviour of the DLL" then I'm afraid that's exactly what version numbers are for - so new applications can use the new behaviour and old ones can load a different version, or a shim to the new one, to get the behaviour they need.
> They worked with *all* versions until you broke them.
I'm not who you mean by "you", but I know *I* haven't "broken" Xlib, nor have the XCB developers - perhaps you meant to address the Fedora Core 8 distribution maintainers, who chose to distribute XCB Xlib in place of classic Xlib without considering the consequences for users with broken X apps?