[lsb-discuss] qt3: testing our deprecation strategy

[Wichmann, Mats D]

Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <20090728143357.GD31679 at mit.edu>, Theodore Tso
> <tytso at mit.edu> writes
>> Maybe, as a strawman proposal, what if we change the deprecation
>> policy that if the interface/library hasn't been used in a certified
>> application, an interface can be removed a year after it has been
>> marked deprecated in an LSB specification?   What do folks think?
> 
> Another strawman ...
> 
> Rather than saying that an interface will be removed, remove it
> straight away but say that in order to claim LSB compliance with any
> particular LSB version, a distro must pass the compliance test for
> all previous LSBs of the last one or two years.

which is to some extent already the case, although it's not as
explicit as it should be.  LSB 4 systems have to support all of
the LSB 3 versions as well.

> Apps, on the other hand, must only use the interfaces in the LSB
> version they claim compliance with.

also already the case. although apps are encouraged to use the
lowest version they can get away with using.

> That way apps are forced to move on, but distros have to support old
> apps. If my app claims, say, LSB 4.0, then it can't rely on anything
> in 3.x, but it's "guaranteed" to run for any version of LSB released up
> to one or two years after 4.0.

I think you hit on the key point, and we could indeed remove things
immediately since a current system must support earlier versions.