On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Chris Frey <cdf...@foursquare.net> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 11:49:35AM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: [...] > > I know. But nearly all Barry releases so far have changed the API in > some small way; so the package should be, perhaps, libbarry16 by now. > If you wish to package Barry that way, I don't mind. Please do. I'm > just trying to make clear that API breakages are to be expected, and I'm > not ready to invest a lot of time in preserving backward compatibility when we > haven't reached version 1.0 yet.
Oh, don't take what I've said as criticism. I understand that API will break in development, and that it has to be broken as well sometimes even in stable releases. > > If people are installing version 0.16 of the library, it makes sense to > install 0.16 utils as well. The PPA packages should be setup in such > a way as to encourage that lockstep. So I (or somebody) need to double check > the default Barry package rules shortly. To avoid such problems, I think that the easiest way is to stick barry-util to depend on libarry0 at the exact same version. After all both packages are compiled from the same source, so it shouldn't be a problem. -- José Carlos García Sogo jcs...@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Barry-devel mailing list Barry-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/barry-devel
