Re: [ft-devel] Re: Progress towards binary backwards compatibility

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 12:22:45AM +0100, David Turner wrote:

> >On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 09:54:14AM -0500, david turner wrote:

> >>I've also discovered that Debian Woody uses 2.0.9, while Sarge uses 2.1.2.

> >Uh, that's not the case, FWIW.  Woody does use 2.0.9, but Sarge uses 2.1.7.

> Thanks steve, this certainly sounds cool to me :-) I have fairly good
> hopes to achieve binary compatibility
> then...

Ok.  I don't suppose you have any sort of ETA for a release that includes
this ABI compatibility?  I understand the desire to avoid an ABI transition,
but from my POV the delays in settling on a final ABI are much more
problematic than the details of what that ABI would be; an ABI change in
freetype would be unpleasant but manageable for Debian, whereas the current
situation of ABI-change-without-name-change that we have with 2.1.10 already
in unstable means we have serious bugs that we basically can't do anything
about until you guys make your move.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
address@hidden                                   http://www.debian.org/

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature