Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMHO, calling libofx0 the old library again is the wrong thing to do. > The reason is explained in the changelog entry for libofx_0.6.2-6. > A package compiled with the old (pre g++ 3.2) libofx0 library will > not work with the "new" libofx0.
Yes; I did also make an upload under the name libofx that should override the mistaken one and which has the old API. But I'd rather have that retired. > I still think the best thing to do would be to keep the old library > name unchanged. This is the kind of stability our users expect. > The new library already gives you the opportunity to get rid of the > ugly c102 suffix, with time, is that is what you are looking for. Fortunately there are only two users of libofx and one of them is me; if this were something used by many people used I would worry a lot more. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
