On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Luca Capello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:38:13 +0200, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: > > Last change in CVS ( 2008/09/09 ) > > > > - We switch to an Ubuntu-like versioning system, based on > $(year).$(month).x > > where "x" is 0 for a release or any higher number for a patched > version. > > I'll play the Devil's advocate here, sorry: does this mean that 0.1.0 > will be SONAME-compatible with 0.1.1? The SONAME only uses the first two numbers. It means I reserve the possibility to have minor bugs fixed and leave that to that last number. However, you will not see that I use something != *.*.0 in a release. Also, what is definitely true is that two libraries with different major (i.e. first) or minor (i.e. second) release numbers are not guaranteed to be binary compatible. > > > - In Unix-type systems, ECL now installs with a "soname" and using > versioned > > directory names, such as /usr/lib/ecl-8.9.0, /usr/lib/libecl.so.8.9, > etc > > Is a new release planned soon or should I package today's CVS snapshot > to close this bug? One or two weeks. Depends on another bug being closed and also how life develops. > CLISP provides a similar situation, but we (i.e. Debian) decided to ship > only one version. What's your advice here? I do not think it is politically correct to ask the maintainer of one implementation how the packaging of a different one should go, so please excuse if I do not answer that question. Juanjo