Hi,
I admit that I haven't been following jack releases very closely recently.
I tend to check objdump output and decide that binary compatibility broke,
instead of checking every program to see if they are broken or not;
and that usually tells me that things are changed.
I very much appreciate
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > a) almost every upstream release of jack was binary incompatible with
> > to the lder ones, thus the need for different package names.
>
> Note that the next jack release is most likely to be binary incompatible
> again considering that iwai's amd64
Hello!
[Mon, 25 Aug 2003] Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> > "ju" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ju> The new version of jack library will be called libjack0.71.2-0
> ju> (although it is of version 0.75.0-1)
>
> Sorry for the dumb question, but what are the reasons for this
> a) almost every upstream release of jack was binary incompatible with
> to the lder ones, thus the need for different package names.
Note that the next jack release is most likely to be binary incompatible
again considering that iwai's amd64 64-bit-32-bit fix is being implemented.
regards,
> "ju" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ju> The new version of jack library will be called libjack0.71.2-0
ju> (although it is of version 0.75.0-1)
Sorry for the dumb question, but what are the reasons for this
versioning scheme?
Feel free to point me to the relevant doc
5 matches
Mail list logo
