Around 23 o'clock on Feb 17, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Tough problem you've got here, I don't really see a way
> around it without a new versioning flag other than
> creating a libX??.la file for the last version of a library
> you're attempting to install (which may or may not work anyway).
Thanks
Keith,
Tough problem you've got here, I don't really see a way
around it without a new versioning flag other than
creating a libX??.la file for the last version of a library
you're attempting to install (which may or may not work anyway).
I would say that a patch to add this flag should warn the u
Around 2 o'clock on Feb 18, Simon Richter wrote:
> To remain binary compatible, it suffices to have the same major version,
> as programs are expected to link against the .so. file. Which
> file this actually symlinks to is irrelevant. So in fact you start off
> using -version-info :0:0 and then
Keith,
> I maintain a few X libraries and would like to see about transitioning
> them from imake to automake. The stumbling block is that I cannot change
> the library version numbers across this transition on any operating system.
To remain binary compatible, it suffices to have the same maj
I maintain a few X libraries and would like to see about transitioning
them from imake to automake. The stumbling block is that I cannot change
the library version numbers across this transition on any operating system.
libtool makes this transition system dependent as I must compute the
corr
