On 01/10, Ralph Lange via Tech-talk wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 18:04, J. Lewis Muir via Tech-talk <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [...] In practice, what this means is:
> >
> > 2. Creating and using binary packages is awkward at best because there
> > is no way to upgrade a binary package safely because any new version
> > (even a bump of just the least significant version number) can break
> > ABI compatibility.
> >
>
> In the context of the 22 releases of CODAC Core System, ITER has
> distributed EPICS as binary packages for 10 years to users in over 60
> organizations worldwide, where it was installed on several hundred
> machines, for development and production use.
> There was not a single situation (that I know of) being awkward for any of
> our users because EPICS Base does not promise ABI compatibility between
> versions.
> Are we living in the same universe?
Apparently not. :-)
I don't know how you're doing it, so I'd be very interested to hear if
you have time to briefly share. But I would guess one or more of the
following makes it work for you:
1. Users only use the command line tools that come with EPICS.
2. Users don't compile any programs that link with the libraries
provided in your EPICS binary packages, nor do they create any binary
packages of their own that depend on your binary packages.
3. When you say "EPICS as binary packages," you mean only what has
been in the past referred to as EPICS Base. You do not mean EPICS
modules.
4. You provide binary packages for EPICS as well as EPICS modules, and
you build them all at once from the same source, and to upgrade, a
user must upgrade all of the binary packages at once or none of them.
5. You provide one monolithic EPICS binary package that includes EPICS
and all EPICS modules.
I'm not saying all of these will be true, but I think some or parts of
some of them must be true in order for it to work for you. I'd be very
interested to hear how you have made things work using a binary package
management system.
Lewis
- Replies:
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- References:
- EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? J. Lewis Muir via Tech-talk
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Johnson, Andrew N. via Tech-talk
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Wang Xiaoqiang via Tech-talk
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Johnson, Andrew N. via Tech-talk
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Wang Xiaoqiang via Tech-talk
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Michael Davidsaver via Tech-talk
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? J. Lewis Muir via Tech-talk
- Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Next:
Carriage Return in asyn record IEOS/OEOS fields Marissa Kranz via Tech-talk
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
<2020>
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Next:
Re: EPICS release series after 7.0: 7.1 or 8.0? Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
<2020>
2021
2022
2023
2024
|