On 17 February 2016 at 12:51, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On 17 February 2016 at 12:02, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>>> Thanks very much Felipe, that clarifies things immensely.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>>
>>> A last question, is there a difference betwee
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 17 February 2016 at 12:02, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>> Thanks very much Felipe, that clarifies things immensely.
>
> :)
>
>>
>> A last question, is there a difference between using this -release
>> style versioning and simply bumping the
On 17 February 2016 at 12:02, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> Thanks very much Felipe, that clarifies things immensely.
:)
>
> A last question, is there a difference between using this -release
> style versioning and simply bumping the SO name on every release?
The only appreciable difference I see i
Thanks very much Felipe, that clarifies things immensely.
A last question, is there a difference between using this -release
style versioning and simply bumping the SO name on every release?
In any case, I'll keep these recommendations in mind for all my
projects (which for some reason always see
On 15 February 2016 at 16:38, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> Hi Stephen
>>
>> On 10 February 2016 at 14:21, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am helping to update RtMidi, a C++ class for cross-platform MIDI
>>> support. There
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Hi Stephen
>
> On 10 February 2016 at 14:21, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am helping to update RtMidi, a C++ class for cross-platform MIDI
>> support. There is a Debian librtmidi package. Although this is just
>> a bug-fi
Hi Stephen
On 10 February 2016 at 14:21, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am helping to update RtMidi, a C++ class for cross-platform MIDI
> support. There is a Debian librtmidi package. Although this is just
> a bug-fix release, and is planned to go from 2.1.0 to 2.1.1, we have
> added
On 02/10/2016 06:21 PM, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> Previous versions have made the error of treating SO version like the
> version number, and producing binaries e.g. librtmidi.so.2.1.0.
>
> I was recommending changing this to properly reflect ABI
> compatibility. What would Debian maintainers pre
Hello,
I am helping to update RtMidi, a C++ class for cross-platform MIDI
support. There is a Debian librtmidi package. Although this is just
a bug-fix release, and is planned to go from 2.1.0 to 2.1.1, we have
added some automake/libtool infrastructure, and a last debate is
whether to properly
