pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this round

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this round
From: fche@xxxxxxxxxx (Frank Ch. Eigler)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:03:15 -0500
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <530FF605.2000809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Ken McDonell's message of "Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:35:49 +1100")
References: <530F9B64.4080505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <722030351.18148411.1393537152651.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <530FDAE6.5070308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <506527158.18237145.1393551642685.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <530FF605.2000809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> [...]
> <rant>
> probably because the developers of libmicrohttpd follow the open
> source view (unlike the sgi irix 6.5 view) that breaking the API/ABI
> is fine and to hell with backwards compatibility, which I'm guessing
> prevents backporting to older distros and leaves them stuck with older
> versions of the library
> </rant>

I really don't get the impression that this is the case with
libmicrohttpd.  While they don't go to the full ABI-compatibility sort
of efforts related to symbol versioning etc., I am not aware of any
API breakage over the time.

Instead of those folks, you might consider poking the debian packagers
in question to see if they had considered moving to a newer version,
and if not why.  For that matter, why do they ship only pcp 3.3.3, or
systemtap 1.2 for oldstable.

- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>