Re: [Xcb] [ANNOUNCE] xcb-util 0.3.9

[Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun  2, 2012 at 16:41:02 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> 
>> Why did "Do not rely anymore on gperf and m4 following removal of deprecated atoms." do this:
>> 
>> -libxcb_util_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 0:0:0 -no-undefined
>> +libxcb_util_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 1:0:0 -no-undefined
>> 
>> I don't see this change requiring a major version bump which should
>> only be done for binary compatibility changes.  Yes, you removed the
>> xcb_atom_get_predefined and xcb_atom_get_name_predefined functions,
>> but not in a binary incompatible way, so you should not have bumped
>> the major version which requires relinking every library and
>> application that links against the library.
>> 
> How are the xcb_atom_get_predefined/xcb_atom_get_name_predefined
> removals not binary incompatible??

Nothing else changed, just the removal of the symbols.  All other functions did not change their signatures.

Think about this from the libc perspective.  libc *may have* strlcat or not, but they're named the same because all functions in libc have consistent signatures.



_______________________________________________
xorg@xxxxxxxxxxx: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Your subscription address: list-xorg@xxxxxxxxxxx