| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ABI stabilityABI stabilityPosted Aug 1, 2008 11:42 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: Memory, memory by renox Parent article: Will LSB 4 Standardize Linux? (InternetNews)
ABI stability might be a priority for an organisation such as LF which is a consortium of proprietary software developers. For free software projects, it might be quite justified that this wasn't a priority (it can be good, but just not a top priority).
(Log in to post comments)
ABI stability Posted Aug 1, 2008 17:21 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] ABI stability is important for distributors of binaries, regardless of whether there is source available. It doesn't help much that you would be able to compile a program with a stable compiler version if all of your C++ system libraries are required not to be possible to link against it by the standard your distribution conforms to. Just because users could throw out all of their binary packages that use C++ and get the source packages and build them doesn't mean this isn't a problem for them. And it's particularly bad for users of free software if it's impossible to have on their system for a given library, both a file that will work with the provided software and a file that will work with output from the reliable compiler, because users are likely to want to compile things and have them work, which is less of an issue for users of only proprietary software.
|
|
||||||||||||