Re: libtool versioning

* Peter Rosin wrote on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:05:37AM CEST: > Den 2010-05-03 22:03 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: [...] > ># 3. If the library source code has changed at all since the last > >update, > ># then increment revision (`c:r:a' becomes `c:r+1:a'). > ># 4. If any interfaces

Re: Rebooting the release process

Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 09:59:16AM CEST: > 1. Check that the current HEAD is not totally broken on any of the > 20-some architectures I have access to. And supply or solicit fixes > for any of those platforms anyone still cares about. there is probably not eve

Rebooting the release process

Libtoolers, Armed with a fresh spurt of enthusiasm, I'd like to remedy the fact that we're still very much in need of a new release. I've been mostly absent from the list since my last attempt several months ago, but it seems a shame to me that even our micro-releases are getting farther and f

Re: libtool versioning

Den 2010-05-03 22:03 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: * Jef Driesen wrote on Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:24:09PM CEST: Yes, I have read the libtool manual, but it doesn't contain much info about the resulting filename. Most of the info is about the c:r:a scheme for input, not the output. Yes, because the ou

Re: libtool versioning

>>> I am not a native English speaker, but I find the use of "may use" a bit confusing in the added text. I would suggest changing some instances of "may use" to "are able to use" and some to "might