Search results

...ource --whatrequires 'libpython3.9.so.1.0()(64bit)' --whatrequires 'python(abi) = 3.9' --whatrequires '/usr/bin/python3.9' --whatrequires 'python3.9dist(* ...uery --whatrequires 'libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit)' --whatrequires 'python(abi) == 3.6' --whatrequires '/usr/bin/python3.6' --whatrequires 'python3.6dist(

== 2010-06-24 - Evolution abi breaking update == * ABI breaks in stable releases should be coordinated.

...ource --whatrequires 'libpython3.9.so.1.0()(64bit)' --whatrequires 'python(abi) = 3.9' --whatrequires '/usr/bin/python3.9' --whatrequires 'python3.9dist(* ...uery --whatrequires 'libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit)' --whatrequires 'python(abi) == 3.6' --whatrequires '/usr/bin/python3.6' --whatrequires 'python3.6dist(

...ot ABI compatible and because EPEL guidelines strongly discourage breaking ABI compatibility, separate Python 3 minor versions in EPEL 7+ are packaged as

This change does not change ABI but that assumes clients are not abusing the ABI; the static vs dynamic trampoline change is an internal implementation.

change the ABI or require config file adjustments must be avoided if at all possible. Compat- Packages that provide the old ABI need to be

If the situation requires a major ABI/API change (security, a new

...ezes ABI for release, so careful attention must be paid to any last minute ABI changes. ...ar, but to do so may require a mass rebuild to remove new symbols from the ABI/API.

...e the actual release, so careful attention must be paid to any last minute ABI changes. ...ar, but to do so may require a mass rebuild to remove new symbols from the ABI/API.

...t a mass rebuild uses the released version of glibc to fix any last minute ABI changes. The GNU C Library (glibc) does not require a mass rebuild for this ...ar, but to do so may require a mass rebuild to remove new symbols from the ABI/API.

...server (1.4.99) which brings a large number of benefits to users and a new ABI as described in the [[Releases/9/FeatureList | feature list]]. ...from some vendors (AMD (fglrx)) are not yet compatible with this new X.Org ABI. (nVidia has also taken their time, but as of May 28, 2008, an updated driv

...(abi)</code> requirement will be adapted to generate <code>platform-python(abi)</code> requirement for that location ...de> will provide <code>platform-python(abi)</code> instead of <code>python(abi)</code>

* Determine if all objects implement the same ABI (e.g., they agree upon the format of <code>long double</code>). This would ** Which (architecture specific) ABI variant is in use in object X and is it compatible with object Y ?

...ing: No action from release engineering is needed for this change (libcurl ABI is kept), releng review requested at https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7193

<li><blockquote><p>External module api/abi definition and consumption — contyk, sct</p></blockquote></li></ul>

...es are automatically disabled in the test suite and removed from reference ABI lists, and it's not immediately apparent that feature is gone. Therefore, s ...with its parameter save area), although it comes very close to an implicit ABI break.

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the