Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (129 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Extensions for specification of application binary/programming interfaces?
On Saturday 2016-01-23 16:06, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

Are there any more possibilites to reduce unwanted consequences
from such situations?

Automatic generation of tags based upon the ABI
-- basically the srcmd5 fingerprint approach I suggested.

Can this information be queried as a RPM capability?

That makes no sense. You need to work on your grammar.


Should RPM capabilities help to manage specific software requirements?

They already do on a daily basis.

How do you think about to describe data around the requirements of ABIs and
APIs
for various software libraries and their users a bit more explicitly
(instead of encoding such information often in a main version number)?

This is already being practised in case you have not noticed.


How should the available and really usable versions be determined for
application programming interfaces which will fit to a selected
application binary interface of a needed component?

That is a different category, which does not visibly happen in practice,
and which is unrelated to the three bugreports mentioned earlier.

How is the software packaging situation different here?

It is not.

How are the chances to improve the corresponding data processing?

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

< Previous Next >