Weston versioning (Re: [PATCH weston 6/6] libweston: do not use weston version in libweston.pc)

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:11:57 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh at inai.de> wrote:

> On Friday 2016-07-15 15:30, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >> >OTOH, would adding a new libweston MAJOR in an already stable and
> >> >released binary distribution be absolutely forbidden? It would by
> >> >definition not affect anything the distribution was released with,
> >> >unless libweston's dependencies changed, but I think the
> >> >dependencies might change less often than we bump MAJOR.    
> >> 
> >> What the distro permits is a matter of their policy. Nothing you
> >> should be concerned about, because what you do is just regularly
> >> releasing new versions of your software.  
> >
> >That's true about policy, yes, but I'm getting a strange vibe here.
> >You too seem to advocate ignoring distributions rather than taking
> >them into account. [...]
> >This is the second time I have been turned down for trying
> >to figure out what distributions would like to have from the
> >upstream.  
> 
> Well let me rephrase it then. In openSUSE, adding a package to the
> update channel (bugfix channel) is possible, as is doing so with new
> SONAME, as we support selectively rebuilding packages (already have
> to do that because of the kernel's unstability guarantee).
> 
> But I probably would not normally ship a new shiny libweston with new
> features and new APIs in the bugfix channel, so whatever new release
> may be available at freedesktop.org, it would have to wait for the
> next distro release.

Hi Jan,

I can totally agree with that. Particularly as you probabably
wouldn't include a compositor needing a new libweston on a bugfix
channel either, right? A compositor bumping its libweston major
requirement is not a bug fix by definition, so there's no
problem.

If there is a demand for bugfix releases on old major releases, I
believe we would do those, provided backporting the fix is not too
hard. But I also think users need to ask for that, since otherwise
it would be better to just concentrate on getting libweston
actually stabilized. Some way to advertise the "please do ask" would
probably be necessary from weston upstream.

In fact, this is what we already do with the stable branches of
weston and wayland - they don't see any attention if no-one asks
for it. It would be even better if we got help with them from the
people that would need them.

> So it's not really a turn-down, but I just do not have anything
> to request from upstream with regard to releases.

Ok, sorry for the confusion.


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20160717/71a4222b/attachment.sig>