[libical] ABI stability

[Patrick Ohly]

On Sat, 2013-11-23 at 10:12 -0500, Allen Winter wrote:
> But this was a major release, so reasonable and not unexpected for ABI to break in a major release.

I agree, if there are good reasons for an ABI break, then doing it at a
major release is the right thing to do. But that doesn't mean that a
major release alone is a reason for breaking the ABI.

> Of course we need to find a way to ensure ABI.

Good.

> Now I worried that ABI is broken again for people who rebuilt against 1.0.0
> and then install the next release.  So I'm thinking of reverting 1156

And restore the previous behavior where the ABI was essentially
undefined, because it was depending on the implementation of Perl? That
doesn't sound like a solution.

I had checked, Ubuntu Saucy has libical.so.1 with enums sorted, just
like Fedora has now. I suggest declaring that as the libical.so.1 ABI
and ensuring that all users of libical 1.0 adhere to that; therefore a
bugfix release with commit 1156 would be good.

-- 
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
Patrick.Ohly at gmx.de
http://www.estamos.de/