Re: Backward compatibility of next beta

[Eric L.]

Hi,

On 04/02/2020 14:58, Patrik Dufresne wrote:
> I'm definitely looking toward a similar solution where it's seamless.
> The more I'm thinking of it, we may need to change the code in
> rdiff-backup to help us. What would really help is having rdiff-backup
> calling a different executable in the remote schema. Instead of calling
> "rdiff-backup" it should call rdiff-backup2.0.0. And rdiff-backup could
> be a symbolic link to the default version, either 1.2.8 or 2.0.0. That
> would really simplify the migration process for everyone.
> 
> 
> @EricZolf <mailto:address@hidden> Do you think it's feasible ?
> It would mitigate all the migration issue and API incompatibilities. We
> could also call "rdiff-backup2" (with only the major version) and bump
> the major version only when an API incompatibility get introduced in the
> code.

The issue is that wheels don't support links, at least not by default
(it seems it's possible to fiddle them in, but I haven't tried and it
sounds again ugly). There also isn't anything you can't configure /
tweak yourself as part of the installation you anyway need to do (as
1.2/1.3 and 1.9/2.0 use different versions of Python, only the binary
itself need attention, the libraries are anyway in different places) and
using --remote-schema.

Also, so late in the release cycle, I'm reluctant to change even more
things.

Hope you can live with it,
Eric