--- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:32:27 +0200, Alexander Gottwald wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > > > > > How about a seperate package call X11-compat for this? Just > seems > > > like a waste of space for people who don't care. > > > > Good idea > > > > > library name used on *nix: libXfoo.0.0.so > > > > actually libXfoo.so.0.0, everything else will also break the > library > > versioning. > > > *for Cygwin: > > > ============ > > > > > > runtime name: > > > ------------- > > > > > > "cyg" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + <minor> + "." + > "dll" > > > [i.e. cygXfoo.0.0.dll] > > > > Any minor version bump will break older clients. They will > request > > cygXfoo.0.0.dll but cygXfoo.0.1.dll is installed and is > sufficient. > > > > if we name it only cygXfoo.0.dll, can the cygwin installer make > sure > > that at least package foo-x.y-1 is installed and not only > foo-x.y-0 > > for all packages requiring the new version? > > I think in this instance that windows doesn't help us much. I think > it should be fine if we had say libXfoo.0.dll installed (which was > really v0.0), but then we released Xfoo-0.1.tar.gz which installed > another libXfoo.0.dll (which is now v0.1). I.E We only ever report > the > major version number and forget about the minor one, as in the case > of the minor number we are always backwards compatible.
Of course, you're correct. I was worried they might make a binary incompatible minor release. However, if this is not the case, then we should be in good shape :-). Cheers, Nicholas __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com