пн, 24 Ð¼Ð°Ñ 2021 г. в 13:21, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org>: > It seems that even the work of trying to maintain binary compatibility > *within* minor versions is mostly wasted. For any given version, OSes seem > to stick on the exact x.y.z version that they started on, and then > "backport" patches from our x.y.z+1 (etc) versions to their "x.y.z", But breaking binary compatibility would make their work harder, not easier. They'd need to either force-upgrade versions of all dependent packages (to effectively rebuild them) or now they instead of us have to review all patches for breakage. It doesn't look like a fair exchange. Furthermore, that could lead to code running on 5.x.y on one platform to have one set of not-fixed bugs, but running with a different set on another platform - due to them choosing different strategies. It's not impossible now, but foregoing binary in point releases compatibility extravagets it. Best regards, Sergey AleynikovThread Previous | Thread Next