On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:19:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > 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. The binary package should still be called libofx0c102, not libofx0. libofx0 would be fine as a source package name, but there's no reason to gratuitously change the name of the binary package. (Even though it's probably rare to find someone who still has a testing/unstable version of gnucash or grisbi on their system that's over 2 years old.) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
