[postgis-devel] wait till monday for final ?

[Mark Johnson]

2015-10-08 12:53 GMT+02:00 Bas Couwenberg <sebastic at xs4all.nl>:

> On 2015-10-08 12:12, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 11:26:03AM +0200, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
>>
>> For Debian we'll keep PostGIS 2.2.0 in experimental until this
>>> API/ABI breakage is fixed in 2.2.1 or later.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
>>
>> Note that there's been no ABI breakage so far, as 2.2.0 is the
>> very first version that ships a liblwgeom with SONAME "liblwgeom-2.2.so.2"
>> (as any precedent version was the first and only version with its
>> unique SONAME).
>>
>
> ABI breakages require a transition to rebuild all reverse dependencies to
> use the new library.
>
> Since another ABI breakage is expected in the next release after 2.2.0,
> it's better to wait for that an not have to transition twice in a short
> time frame.
>
> In Debian we prepare transitions in experimental until we're ready to
> start the transition in unstable from which it will migrate to testing for
> inclusion in the next stable release and from where Ubuntu syncs its
> packages.
>
> Fixing such performance regression required changing the ABI of
>> liblwgeom, and that's fine because the SONAME for the liblwgeom version
>> in trunk is "liblwgeom-2.3.so.2".
>>
>> I guess I could port the fix as-is to the 2.2 branch and change the
>> liblwgeom SONAME to "liblwgeom-2.2.so.3", but then it would really
>> be the same as before, where full version was included in the SONAME.
>>
>> Or do you have other suggestion ?
>>
>
> No, changing the SONAME is required to sanely deal with the ABI breakage,
> so this is fine.
>
> Based on the previous SONAME discussion I think it's better to make
> liblwgeom into a postgis-only library again, and make it clear that other
> projects should not use it. An unpopular decision but one that fits with
> the postgis development.
>
Not only very unpopular with other projects, but also with the sponsor who
financed its development with the intention that it be made available to
the project that they themselves use.

To follow the suggestions made for a release when all of the major
components are complete
- here it seems that it was release, knowing that it was not

The sponsor will not be pleased about that.

Mark Johnson

>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Bas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20151008/a0106903/attachment.html>