Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Sep 1999, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > I'm more tempted to revert to the major/minor versioning. Every change > > triggers a minor version bump, but only if the library is still backwards > > compatible with minor version 0 and the same major version. Otherwise a > > major version bump is required. > > A change to the LPI deserves a version change. Changes which only > patch/correct > the implementation do not require one.
If the libraries are different, give them different versions. It's a simple rule. > > This only works if the dynamic linker uses a slightly different approach > > when linking: > > Linking is performed in such a way that if a program is linked against > > version x.y of libfoo, then every libfoo with version x.z and z>=y is a > > valid candidate. If there're more than one candidate ....... > > Rather than force this on the loader, simply use links in the file system to > point to the "current" one. That pushes the burden to the install Makefile > where it is executed only once. You are missing the point. -- Marcel Moolenaar mailto:mar...@scc.nl SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/ The FreeBSD project mailto:mar...@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
