Hi,
> I'll update the meta info, and also add the new package (probably today).
Thanks for having us. :)
> For us stable means rock solid, API stable.
Looking at similar T2 packages, i deem xorriso
more solid than genisoimage of cdrkit (resp
mkisofs). I deem xorriso and cdrskin more solid
than wodim of cdrkit (and more solid than
cdrecord if for DVD and BD media). Only growisofs
from dvd+rwtools has my full admiration for what
it does.
Our library APIs are kept compatible for a
stable .so number since march 2007. I.e. if you
link dynamically an older application with a
newer library, then it will work with all bug
fixes and inner enhancements.
The APIs are evolving, though. New calls get
added, reserved parameter values get assigned
a meaning, ...
Therefore, after startup, an application has to
inquire the library revision and compare it with
the revision that was seen at compile time.
Newer dynamic libraries are ok, older ones are
a reason to refuse application start.
(The revison numbering of libtool would suffice to
express compatibility ranges. But Linux .so
numbering does not reflect that. FreeBSD is even
more restricted.
pkg-config can check dependencies at install time
but does not provide safety at compile time and
at run time.)
So for our applications i would claim "Stable".
For the libraries too, if our commitment to
future .so compatibility suffices.
> For classic U*ix like packages,
> this usually means when they have no 0 as major version number
> component :-)
The 0 expresses the fact that we are still exploring
the possibilities of our project topic. Many things
remain to do.
But indeed, our project should start a discussion
whether we shall bump up revisions for a better
public impression.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
lists@... with a subject of: unsubscribe t2
