pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp updates - last piece of debian packaging changes for this round
From: fche@xxxxxxxxxx (Frank Ch. Eigler)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:11:53 -0500
Cc: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1180352175.18258965.1393556591992.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> (Nathan Scott's message of "Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:03:12 -0500 (EST)")
References: <530F9B64.4080505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <722030351.18148411.1393537152651.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <530FDAE6.5070308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <506527158.18237145.1393551642685.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <530FF605.2000809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1180352175.18258965.1393556591992.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
nathans wrote:

> [...]  Not sure that's what it is.  As I see it, the problem is
> we've used new parts of the API in pmwebd.  So *we* are the ones who
> have said to hell with backwards compatibility in doing so [...]

Backward compatibility does not mean basing one's new work on ancient
code bases.  (We don't limit ourselves to the UNIX v5 API either.)  It
means approximately that once we start working, we stay working, with
particular kinds of future environmental changes.


> From looking in the <microhttpd.h> header, we prefer
> MHD_create_response_from_buffer over MHD_create_response_from_data
> (which is still present, but marked as deprecated in the header).
> Could we possibly support either API?  [...]

I don't know, maybe.

Or we could declare that debian oldstable is too old to build pmwebd,
and give that a separate .deb .dsc file, so it doesn't even try.

- FChE

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