Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (129 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Extensions for specification of application binary/programming interfaces?
  • From: "SF Markus Elfring" <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:20:50 +0100
  • Message-id: <trinity-ba8682e8-3eb3-41fc-9484-64a2a2add251-1453544450169@3capp-webde-bap07>
They both are a duplicate of[]
where I already bemoaned the lack of symbol versions.

Would you like to improve such situations anyhow?
Have you got any further ideas to fix similar issues?

Can specific certification marks help to make the reuse of some software
packages a bit safer?


Thanks for your acknowledgement.

The dependency *resolution* is fine.

Interesting view …

The problem is with lazy upstream developers who do not update
these "marks" *at all* when they made a change.

Do they need any additional and enhanced tools which will make
the desired tag (or SONAME) maintenance more convenient and safe?

* Difficulties with activation of another current Nvidia graphic driver

The ".run" installer from nvidia is a homebrew solution and
tramples on files managed by RPM - which subsequently get replaced
by RPM at some point again.

How do you think about the general idea to express the properties "application
binary interface" and "application programming interfaces" more often?

Would any consistent usage of RPM capabilities help in such use cases?

Can they be automatically determined?

Which specification style do you prefer at corresponding places?

* gimp(abi) = 4
gimp(api) = 2.0

* php(api) = 20131106
php(zend-abi) = 20131226
php-api = 20131106
php-zend-abi = 20131226

* python(abi) = 2.7

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups