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
the
> libtool manual (a tall order, for some project maintainers, I'll
> grant you).
Most operating systems use either nothing, major, major.minor, or
major.minor.revision for shared library versioning and share the rules
when to increment those numbers. Libtool thinks that some ar
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
>
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 few other operating systems too. I'm not sure
that I'
13 matches
Mail list logo
