Re: [Qemu-devel] [QUESTION] SDL 1.2 support

From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.m.mail@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
	QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [QUESTION] SDL 1.2 support
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:16:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190716181657.GC857@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL1e-=jDKUo7UrXz4wPuby4fWHXEK0pj2k_=sXiHz=zz+66u4A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 08:06:24PM +0200, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
> > > It appears that Ubuntu 16.04 came originally with SDL 1.2, and
> > > SDL 2.0 was made available later on.
> >
> > That is not the case. Ubuntu has shipped both SDL 1.2 and 2.0
> > concurrently as options, even in the previous 14.04 LTS, and
> > probably before that too.
> >
> 
> Thank you for finding this out.
> 
> However, this bring to surface another problematic point:
> 
> We assume that introduction of SDL 2.0 to Ubuntu is a green light
> for deprecating SDL 1.2. In fact, SDL 1.2 is not deprecated by
> Ubuntu (at least not by 16.04) - as established by you.
>

> > > That is the problem: We make, in my opinion, an incorrect logical
> > > leap here: we assume that if a package is available for an OS, it is
> > > installed (or should be installed) on any instance of an OS.
> >
> > We're not assuming that it is installed, as everyone's OS install
> > packageset is going to be different. We're just assuming that it is
> > possible to be installed as an official vendor package, should the
> > user want that feature. This is not unreasonable IMHO.
> >
> 
> Again, what I find problematic is that we don't take deprecating
> of older version of a library by a distribution as our reference point,
> but our reference point is introducing of a new version.

Distros don't really do "deprecation" as a concept though.
They will continue to ship an old version of a library for
as long as they need to ship some application that consumes
it. IOW, the fact that SDL 1.2 exists still indicates that some
application the distro cares about is unable to build with
SDL 2 yet.

For this reason you'll even see distros still shipping GTK-1,
despite GTK-2 being released in 2002 and GTK-3 in 2011 and
GTK-4 appearing real soon.  IOW, it wouldn't surprise me if
SDL 1.2 exists in distros for another 10 years, despite the
upstream project considering it obsolete long ago. This
doesn't mean it is desirable / neccessary to continue to
support SDL 1.2 in downstream apps, when SDL 2 is widely
available.

> Daniel, in any case, thanks a lot for your responses, I will not
> respond to another email of yours in this thread, since I would be
> just repeating myself - I also responded to Peter and Thomas,
> so you can read those responses too for more details.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|