[kerberos-discuss] thoughts/issues making MIT krb code fit for drop-in to Solaris

Simo Sorce ssorce at redhat.com
Fri Sep 19 12:39:41 EDT 2008

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 10:57 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 08:45:11AM -0700, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> > API and source distribution compatibility does not necessarily imply  
> > ABI compatibility.  I don't see a strong need for ABI compatibility.
> So every time MIT makes a new release you rebuild all other krb5/gss
> applications that you run?
> Seriously??
> For Sun ABI compatibility is considered far more important than source
> compatibility, and it's what we guarantee (modulo EOF announcements and
> our interface stability and release type taxonomies).  From previous
> conversations with Sam (and I am aware that he left the Consortium) MIT
> cares about the ABI as much as we do.
> (I should take this as an opportunity to knock operating systems where
> having to rebuild applications from source with every OS release is par
> for the course...)

Both API and ABI compatibility are important.
API compatibility is more important for developers.
ABI compatibility is more important for system administrators.

THe important thing is to reach a decent balance and make sure ABI/API
breaks happen on a major release and they are very well advertized in
advance, so that vendors can plan how to address the issue.


Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

More information about the krbdev mailing list