Hi Scott, Scott Cantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I did some more thinking about -version-info vs -revision. I think > > I now understand things better and we can do it either way. With > > -version-info, the version passed will be different from the release > > version. Because Xerces-C++ release numbers are governed by the > > interface compatibility (e.g., major releases are backwards- > > incompatible, minor releases are interface-compatible but not binary > > compatible, and build releases are binary compatible), the age > > component will always be 0. > > BTW, is that true? I think I'm confused then...with -revision, you don't > have binary compatible releases: > > "Note that this option causes a modification of the library name, so do not > use it unless you want to break binary compatibility with any past library > releases." Right. That's why we omit the last version field from the version that we pass to -revision. Libraries that differ only in the last field are binary-compatible and can be replaced with one another. > If you put the name into the filename, you would have to omit any > public indication that the library is for 3.0.1 and not for 3.0. > That seems like a bad idea, so I don't think the trade-off here is > neutral. Why is this a bad idea? The only drawback is that you can't have two libraries that only differ in the last field side by side. Boris -- Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools Open source XML data binding for C++: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd Mobile/embedded validating XML parsing: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
