Steve,
IMHO it isn't worth the bother to allow both, I'll just revert patch.
Everyone agree?
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve M. Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:21 PM
To: Boehne, Robert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Version numbering change on IRIX
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:34:33PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
> > about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
> > Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
> > think of to find out why this was done in the first place, but found
> > none. I realize this change doesn't "fix" anything, and could potentially
> > cause problems, but these will be transient, and it is consistent with
> > other platforms.
>
> indeed: breaking every application linked against the old (overwritten)
> version of affected libraries is certainly a problem. This will be
> transient since people will be forced to rebuild/relink every affected
> application; something I consider a nightmare in big installations,
> especially when libraries used all over the place (like the GCC runtime
> libraries) are affected.
>
> I can already hear the outcry from affected users and admins; I don't want
> to be in the position to explain to them that their applications had to be
> broken for cosmetic reasons and consistency with other platforms.
I think Rainer has a point. This change shouldn't be made lightly.
Perhaps the "add 1 for IRIX" behaviour could be made a libtool option
that is ON by default?
-S
