AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2004.07.10 17:56 "[Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.10 19:07 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.07.10 19:56 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.11 02:49 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Frank Warmerdam
2004.07.11 14:27 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.07.11 17:32 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.07.11 18:05 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.07.11 16:47 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.11 17:27 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.07.11 17:52 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.11 17:56 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.14 16:11 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.14 16:50 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Bob Friesenhahn

2004.07.10 19:07 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev

It seems to me that, if there is a "contract" that says that there should be no non-compatible ABI changes within the same major version, then that contract has been accidentally broken. If there is no such guarantee, then the soname in the shared library should certainly be changed every time a non-compatible change is made.

Jay,

I'm agree that there were changes in the public binary interface (but some of the above mentioned changes are in private interfaces). I think that the best solution will be to issue the final 3.7.0 release as a 4.0.0 and I'm promising to be more carefull with ABI in the future. Frank, any objections against renaming?

Thoughts? Do you agree that it's a mistake to create a situation where an application compiled with 3.5.7 doesn't run with 3.6.1's shared library? (If not, then I must be misunderstanding something and would appreciate an explanation.) Do you acknowledge that this situation has happened? If not, I'll try to dig deeper. There are many examples of this situation in Debian as you can see from the following link:

You are absolutely right here. That is my fault and I shall try to resolve the problem as soon as possible.

But I'm wondering, why I don't have any feedback from the Debian maintainer? Being a Debian user I've looked at the libtiff's bug reports in Debian from time to time and there are bugs, which are certainly should be redirected to upstream, but they are not. At least maintainer may point users to our Bugzilla page. Otherwise bugs stay undiscovered by the library developers.

Andrey

Andrey V. Kiselev
Home phone: +7 812 5274898 ICQ# 26871517