On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 17:58, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> After the next cron web update, please read:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/contribute.html
>
> and give me your feedback...
>
Makes sense to me, seems to cover everything well enough to avoid any
confusion about what kind of re
gives
some feeling of sense to accustomed to the odd/even version
numbering scheme of Linux.
Besides the Linux kernel, what *else* uses that odd/even numbering
scheme? I have seen a couple, but I can't remember any now.
GLib, GTK+, Gimp and GNOME (as well as many to most GNOME apps) spring
immedi
Scott James Remnant wrote:
Not sure whether it's a concern, but generally most packaging systems
(RPM springs to mind) do not allow a '-' in the package's upstream
version.
It's only a concern to the RPM users and maintainers.
If it's a CVS snapshot for the next version increment just timestamp th
ple cannot
mis-sort versions with letters with others. It could also gives
some feeling of sense to accustomed to the odd/even version
numbering scheme of Linux.
I like this idea! But it doesn't solve all my issues...
The criterion I want to satisfy are:
1: alpha releases, point releas
sense to accustomed to the odd/even version
numbering scheme of Linux.
Besides the Linux kernel, what *else* uses that odd/even numbering
scheme? I have seen a couple, but I can't remember any now.
GLib, GTK+, Gimp and GNOME (as well as many to most GNOME apps) spring
immediately to mind.
Kaffe
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 10:15, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> > I didn't understand your proposal, but I hope you are not
> > planning to make 2.2 < 2.3a < 2.3. That would be counter
> > intuitive. IMHO any numbering scheme ought to work with `ls -v'.
>
> Actually, that is
e feeling of sense to accustomed to the odd/even version
> > numbering scheme of Linux.
>
> Besides the Linux kernel, what *else* uses that odd/even numbering
> scheme? I have seen a couple, but I can't remember any now.
>
GLib, GTK+, Gimp and GNOME (as well as many to most GN
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Your point about `ls -v' is a good one though. I'll put an extra `-'
before the letter:
] touch libtool-1.5.tar.gz libtool-1.6a.tar.gz libtool-1.6.tar.gz
] \ls -1 -v
libtool-1.5.tar.gz
libtool-1.6.tar.gz
libtool-1.6a.tar.gz
] mv libtool-1.6a.tar.gz
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
"Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Gary> And that's why people find our version scheme confusing. I'm not sure
Gary> how we ended up working in this way, I think we copied it from
Gary> Automake?
Tsk tsk tsk. Libtool used that scheme fi
cerned, I claim that
> > it's easier to do if it works with `ls -v'.
>
> Zack Weinberg seems to have spent a lot of thought on version
> numbering:
>
> http://www.panix.com/~zackw/exbib/2002/June/20
>
> > In the past, people have also argued that using character
tools. After all the
> real releases are easy to sort since they use only digit.
> As far as explaining the new scheme is concerned, I claim that
> it's easier to do if it works with `ls -v'.
Zack Weinberg seems to have spent a lot of thought on version numbering:
http://www.pa
annot
mis-sort versions with letters with others. It could also gives
some feeling of sense to accustomed to the odd/even version
numbering scheme of Linux.
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Daniel Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several GNU projects (including GCC) do leave off .0's for anything past the
> minor number, so it seems ls -v can't be the final authority :/
It does not follow that this numbering scheme is a good one. I would
argue that it isn't. The gcc maintainers se
On 2003-09-29T22:50+0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
) planning to make 2.2 < 2.3a < 2.3. That would be counter
) intuitive. IMHO any numbering scheme ought to work with `ls -v'.
ls ls -v ls -rt
naim-0.11.5.1.tar.gz naim-0.11.5.1.tar.gz
>>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Gary> And that's why people find our version scheme confusing. I'm not sure
Gary> how we ended up working in this way, I think we copied it from
Gary> Automake?
Tsk tsk tsk. Libtool used that scheme first. Automake copied it
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 04:51 pm, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I think when we branch for a release (say the upcoming 1.6), version
numbers
in the branch should continue to be "1.6.?", but that
the trunk
should bump its minor number to make it cl
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I think when we branch for a release (say the upcoming 1.6), version
numbers in the branch should continue to be "1.6.?", but
that the trunk should bump its minor number to make it clear the trunk
is very different to the stable branch: "1.7?". We would of
course continu
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> I think when we branch for a release (say the upcoming 1.6), version numbers
> in the branch should continue to be "1.6.?", but that the trunk
> should bump its minor number to make it clear the trunk is very different to
> the stable branch: "1.7?".
I am considering changing the version numbering scheme we use for alpha
releases of libtool, which are currently a source of much confusion. The
release rules in Makefile.am, and the release procedure documented in
README-alpha are all that will need updating.
I think when we branch for a
Robert,
> IMHO it isn't worth the bother to allow both, I'll just revert patch.
> Everyone agree?
certainly :-) If the difference in shlib version numbering between
Solaris/Linux and IRIX is really a FAQ that causes user confusion, perhaps
this should be documented?
Title: RE: Version numbering change on IRIX
Steve,
IMHO it isn't worth the bother to allow both, I'll just revert patch.
Everyone agree?
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Steve M. Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:21 PM
To: Boehne, Robe
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:34:33PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
> > about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
> > Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
Robert,
> This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
> about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
> Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
> think of to find out why this was done in the first place, but found
Title: RE: Version numbering change on IRIX
Rainer,
This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
think of to fi
Robert,
I just noticed this change
2002-10-23 Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ltmain.in: Do not add 1 to the version under IRIX, it is
not necessary.
in CVS libtool. I couldn't find any rationale for it in the archives, and
fear that it might be a dangerous incompatible cha
25 matches
Mail list logo
