Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:24:12 +0530
From: Weldon Goree <>
Subject: Re: Packaging: Slackware

On 07/19/2014 01:23 AM, Rich Felker wrote:

> If you have thoughts on why you don't want to use 1.1.x, hearing those
> would be helpful in further planning how to proceed with 1.0.x.

The only reason I preferred it was looking at the roadmap and release
history; a slackware version lives for a couple of years generally (with
a point release in the middle) and a build should hopefully be good for
that long. I wanted something that was just getting security updates
during roughly that period.

That said,
1. Musl doesn't version symbols, so it shouldn't break ABI over that
time (right?)
2. Ultimately slackbuilds just need to be source-compatible with each
other, so even if it breaks ABI over that time it's not a game killer.
(Slackbuilds have some downstreams that distribute binary packages, but
it's explicitly not the project's goal to support that if it comes down
to it.)

And, in fact, what would be a game killer is if 1.0 is going to *stop*
getting security backports over the next year or so, which would mean I
should definitely do the 1.1 branch.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.