On 6/17/2011 5:26 AM, Lasse Collin wrote:
> At that point, Debian had bumped major to 2. Other distros might have
> had other versions. If I had tracked the ABI breakages in development
> versions, current in -version-info would now be close to a three-digit
> number. Probably I wouldn't have re
On 2011-06-17 Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 6/16/2011 2:50 PM, Lasse Collin wrote:
> > Major:minor:revision is easier to understand than
> > current:revision:age,
>
> Major:minor:revision artificially entangles package release numbering
> with API/ABI changes. Typically when one 'goes up' so does th
On 6/16/2011 2:50 PM, Lasse Collin wrote:
> About -version-info vs. -version-number: *If* it turns out that all
> operating systems supported by Libtool should use a versioning style
> that is essentially the same as version_type=linux, could
> -version-number become the recommended option to se
On 2011-06-14 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Lasse Collin wrote:
> >http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/specialtopics.html
>
> If this web page text is correct, then I agree that libtool is doing
> the wrong thing for OpenBSD. But of course we should search for any
> additional in
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:26, Lasse Collin wrote:
> On 2011-06-14 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Lasse Collin wrote:
>> > Please read the section "Understanding shared libraries
>> > number rules" (it's short):
>> >
>> > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/specialtopics.html
>>
>>
On 06/14/2011 11:26 AM, Lasse Collin wrote:
On 2011-06-14 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Lasse Collin wrote:
Please read the section "Understanding shared libraries
number rules" (it's short):
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/specialtopics.html
If this web page text is corre
On 2011-06-14 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Lasse Collin wrote:
> > Please read the section "Understanding shared libraries
> > number rules" (it's short):
> >
> >http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/specialtopics.html
>
> If this web page text is correct, then I agree that libtoo
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Lasse Collin wrote:
If I add a new public function to a library and don't modify anything
else, I should do ++current, ++age, revision=0, right? For example, if
the previous version of the library uses current:revision:age = 1:3:0,
adding a new function would make it 2:0:1.
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I think that either you missed my
point or I misunderstood something. I try to explain my thoughts better
in this email.
On 2011-06-14 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Libtool can emulate Linux in how it does the numbering but it is not
> able to change how an OS use
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Lasse Collin wrote:
I'm expecting Linux style or something close to it, because according to
the operating systems specific docs that I have read, Linux-like
versioning *is* the right thing on those operating systems (*BSDs and
HP-UX). It would make sense that Libtool would
On 2011-06-10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> iirc, what you're expecting is Linux style on systems which dont use
> Linux style. so libtool is working correctly as the maintainers of
> those respective OS's intended. while you might disagree with their
> decisions, it doesnt make the libtool behavior wr
On Friday, June 10, 2011 14:47:49 Lasse Collin wrote:
> I recently made a bug report that Libtool does shared library
> versioning wrong on *BSDs:
>
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8765
>
> After that bug report I have got a feeling that Libtool may have
> comparable bugs on a
12 matches
Mail list logo
