Hello Gerald,
* Gerald I. Evenden wrote on Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:10:18PM CEST:
> On Thursday 07 May 2009 1:08:40 am Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Gerald I. Evenden wrote on Thu, May 07, 2009 at 02:58:28AM CEST:
> > > Well, everything compiled and looked OK when installed in /usr/local/lib
> > >
On Thursday 07 May 2009 1:08:40 am Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Gerald,
>
> * Gerald I. Evenden wrote on Thu, May 07, 2009 at 02:58:28AM CEST:
> > Well, everything compiled and looked OK when installed in /usr/local/lib
> >
> > libproject.a
> > libproject.la
> > libproject.so
> > libproject.so.0
Hello Gerald,
* Gerald I. Evenden wrote on Thu, May 07, 2009 at 02:58:28AM CEST:
> Well, everything compiled and looked OK when installed in /usr/local/lib
>
> libproject.a
> libproject.la
> libproject.so
> libproject.so.0
> libproject.so.0.0.0
>
> BUT!! Now when I try to recompile any applicati
As and aside on this whole mess and before I blow my brains out (just kidding,
I think) I tried starting the whole mess over and setting the version to
0:0:0 after doing a 'make maintainer-clean'.
Well, everything compiled and looked OK when installed in /usr/local/lib
libproject.a
libproject.l
Hi John,
* John Calcote wrote on Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:18:10AM CEST:
> When I said "ridiculous cases" I really meant "bogus triplets". I didn't
> think there was much you could do about valid triplets that are simply
> incorrect. I should think that Libtool might fail a build if a bogus
>
On 5/6/2009 3:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
John Calcote writes:
One thing that bothers me a little is that we never really did solve
Gerald's original problem. He said his library was created just fine when
he was passing 2:0:0, but when he switched to 2:0:1, it created a library
with a ve
John Calcote writes:
> One thing that bothers me a little is that we never really did solve
> Gerald's original problem. He said his library was created just fine when
> he was passing 2:0:0, but when he switched to 2:0:1, it created a library
> with a version number of 1:1:0. Now, why would Libt
Hi Ralf,
On 5/5/2009 2:46 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello,
I think most issues were already cleared up in this thread.
* John Calcote wrote on Sun, May 03, 2009 at 06:58:09PM CEST:
It appears that Libtool is smart enough to detect ridiculous cases, but
it should probably throw an error o
Hello,
I think most issues were already cleared up in this thread.
* John Calcote wrote on Sun, May 03, 2009 at 06:58:09PM CEST:
> current : revision : age
>
> You really have no reason to increment only the age value of a library
> version. What you're implying by this new version of 2.0.1
Gerald,
On 5/3/2009 12:40 PM, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
I want to thank you all for the assistance, however I still find the libtool
manual not very illuminating. In particular, I used section 7.3 in make my
release number and, in particular, item 5 related to adding an interface
since last rele
On Sunday 2009-05-03 20:40, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
>
>What I did to the library was add several procedures
That in itself would cause a bump in the 'current' number to 3.
>but the original
>functions were not changed nor affected.
So 'age' becomes 1, since you are still supporting (3-1) = 2.
On Sunday 03 May 2009 1:02:54 pm Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Sunday 2009-05-03 18:58, John Calcote wrote:
> >It appears that Libtool is smart enough to detect ridiculous cases, but it
> >should probably throw an error of some sort, rather than simply generate
> >code with a different version number.
On Sunday 2009-05-03 18:58, John Calcote wrote:
>
>It appears that Libtool is smart enough to detect ridiculous cases, but it
>should probably throw an error of some sort, rather than simply generate
>code with a different version number.
Since libtool is "just" a linker as far as is considered h
Hi Gerald,
On 5/3/2009 9:51 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Sunday 2009-05-03 17:41, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
libproject_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 2:0:1
which worked fine when with previous loading of a library with 2:0:0
versioning code.
But now, when I go through the autoreconf, configur
On Sunday 2009-05-03 17:41, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
>libproject_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 2:0:1
>
>which worked fine when with previous loading of a library with 2:0:0
>versioning code.
>
>But now, when I go through the autoreconf, configure, compile and install I
>get:
>
>libproject.so.1.1.0
15 matches
Mail list logo
