From: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
To: Chris Vine <vine35792468@gmail.com>
Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: GNU Guile 3.0.3 released
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:07:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o8p83bvq.fsf@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200623103618.7baacc879e122002e3129084@gmail.com> (Chris Vine's message of "Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:36:18 +0100")
On Tue 23 Jun 2020 11:36, Chris Vine <vine35792468@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:05:51 +0200
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Chris Vine <vine35792468@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:04:03 +0200
>> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >> We are delighted to announce GNU Guile release 3.0.3, the third bug-fix
>> >> release of the new 3.0 stable series. This release represents 170
>> >> commits by 17 people since version 3.0.2. See the NEWS excerpt that
>> >> follows for full details.
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > This has a libguile so ABI jump from libguile-3.0.so.1 to
>> > libguile-3.0.so.3, which breaks my binaries linked to libguile. Is that
>> > normal for a micro update in the stable release series and if so can
>> > there be some warning in the announcement?
>>
>> Yes, it means you need to relink those binaries.
>>
>> I was hesitant about the SONAME: the ABI jump was unnecessary unless in
>> ‘--disable-deprecated’ builds. I erred on the side of cautiousness:
>>
>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=5d052c87bd8f0fd894e67f0bebd4fa6f6160d83c
>
> Hi,
>
> Ah right. There must have been two SO breaks between guile-3.0.2 and
> guile-3.0.3.
>
> It's a nuisance having SO bumps on micro releases and I wonder if that
> could be included in the announcement so that you don't first notice it
> when stuff fails to run?
I think I agree with Chris. The intention is certainly to have a stable
ABI within a stable series, so 3.0.3 should have the same CURRENT.
It's certainly correct that a --disable-deprecated 3.0.3 build has a
different ABI than 3.0.2, and if that were what we were looking at, we
would indeed need the CURRENT version bump; but I think the premise is
wrong: we do *not* have a stable ABI in --disable-deprecated builds, and
we never have. Otherwise we wouldn't ever be able to deprecate anything
within a stable series.
WDYT about a quick 3.0.4 that restores the CURRENT ?
Cheers,
Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-24 12:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-21 21:04 GNU Guile 3.0.3 released Ludovic Courtès
2020-06-22 14:54 ` Jérémy Korwin-Zmijowski
2020-06-22 15:46 ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
2020-06-22 20:50 ` Chris Vine
2020-06-23 8:05 ` Ludovic Courtès
2020-06-23 9:36 ` Chris Vine
2020-06-24 12:07 ` Andy Wingo [this message]
2020-06-24 13:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87o8p83bvq.fsf@pobox.com \
--to=wingo@pobox.com \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=guile-user@gnu.org \
--cc=vine35792468@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).