On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:40:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... > > However, consider: > > - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib > - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author > - There will never be a successor to libImlib.so.1 which uses libImlib.so.2 > as its soname > > So what difference does it make if the library is called libImlib2.so.1 versus > libImlib.so.2? None really, except that one unnecessarily includes a number > in the library /name/, and the other increments the library /version/. Which > makes one much less cumbersome than the other.
what i like even better is when you have libfoo version 2.3.5 soname 2.x.x libfoo2 version 3.4, soname 2.x.x anyway i agree with steve imlib2 is ridiculous it's imlib version 2 "no its not linux 2.0, its linux2" um, no didnt work that way :) -- Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
