Greetings!
Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Sep 22, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Camm Maguire wrote:
>
> > Greetings! One more item just to double check -- this is backward
> > binary compatible with 7.0.x, right?
>
> No. We never guarantee binary compatibility between LAM releases --
> not even between 7.0.x releases.
>
!!!!! I'm hoping that the content of this hinges on the word
'guarantee'. There is a whole lot of software in Debian and
presumably other distributions which links against lam as a shared
library. Recompiling it all on 11 architectures will take weeks.
Needless to say, such actions should be kept to a minimum. Debian has
been building lam as a shared lib for sometime, before lam had such a
build option, and so came up with its own soname to define when binary
incompatible changes force a global recompile. Rightly or wrongly, we
did this at 6.3->6.5, and 6.5->7.0. I've been meaning to ask you if
your lam shared lib option uses a soname scheme in a similar fashion.
I haven't had time to look into it myself.
In any case, I'd really hope that the soname wouldn't change with
every release, but maybe it does. 'Guarantees' aside, is it *known*
that binaries compiled against 7.0.6 will break against 7.1? Might we
have binary compatibility by good fortune with this particular
transition?
Take care, and thannks again!
> We only guarantee upward source compatibility between releases.
>
> --
> {+} Jeff Squyres
> {+} jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> {+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> This list is archived at http://www.lam-mpi.org/MailArchives/lam/
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire camm_at_[hidden]
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
|
