[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gentoo, last tweaks and questions

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] gentoo, last tweaks and questions
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:18:27 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0

On 04/12/2016 01:51 PM, ng0 wrote:
> Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> writes:
>> That should be fine.
> Sourcing from what I wrote here[1], I'd like to get some input on
> this part, where context can be gained through reading the
> comment on
> "I could also ask others in the gnunet project if they'd be
> willing to provide svn snapshot releases of certain
> branches/projects every n days/weeks"
> Is this realistic, and if yes/no may I relay your reply to
> This is something I suggested, the first suggestion of gentoo
> developer wraeth was to suggest either manual captures saved on
> my infrastructure or (preferable I assume) on gentoo
> infrastructure.

I have one main concern with official periodic snapshots, which is that
we effectively want to version all of the libraries (and I'm talking
libtool versioning for ABI compatiblity here:

Now, if we manually do the process, we can reasonably reflect upon what
were the significant changes and bump library versions accordingly. This
gets messy.  There is a tool to somewhat automatically do the ABI
compatibility analysis (, but we'd
really need to integrate that into the build system to generate ABI
compatibility data for all the .so-files --- and that'll be quite a bit
of work.

If we don't do that, the automated snapshot releases are really likely
to break binary compatibility badly, which may even introduce

The problem is that the abi-tracker is useful for doing the analysis and
visualizing the results, but doesn't update the ''
definitions based on the result. That would require some non-trivial
additional hacking --- but result in a tool that would be VERY useful
for a broad audience.  So if someone did that, this would simplify
generating _reasonable_ snapshot releases to the point that I'd be
inclined to commit to making automatically generated snapshots available
on a very regular (daily, weekly) basis.  I'd want to additionally
attach a summary about # failed testcases to warn users away from badly
broken snapshots, but that's then trivial to add.

My 2 cents


Attachment: 0xE29FC3CC.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]