[fpc-devel] LinkLib Issues In Lazarus and in FPC-2.0.2
Marco van de Voort
marcov at stack.nl
Mon Jul 17 11:33:05 CEST 2006
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:21:36AM +0200, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with source based vs binary. If e.g. debian renamed
> > libs tomorrow inside a branch, it would have the same effect.
> They can't do that without breaking all other packages in the archive
> using this package. They don't get rebuilt automatically AFAIK, and
> that's where the difference is IMHO.
I don't understand this. Afaik there is no difference at all. Could you be
more elaborate in what you think would go wrong automatically?
> Furthermore it's policy to change the name of the package when the ABI
> changes, but that's also what you said: kind of release management.
Same also. The problem is that this is the exception where they didn't.
I suspect they simply didn't want to wait till after 6.x, and wanted to keep
5.x-6.x congruency. (if 5.x implements this change at all).
There is also the matter of -RELEASE vs -STABLE, a principle that is hard to
explain, since other distro's don't implement it;
see it like this: a series of releases becomes STABLE when the generic
advise changed to target that series as stable. x.0 versions are typically
never stable (the first 4.x stable was 4.4 the first 5.x was 5.3)
If they changed it only for 6.x, they might consider it minor because it is
affects non-upgraded 6.0 only, and before the -STABLE moniker is applied to
However the difference is that 6.0 is (due to the large compability of 6.x
to 5.x, and its stability) way more widely used for serious work than the
avg FreeBSD x.0 release. (people were generally afraid of 5.0-DP, and right
More information about the fpc-devel