* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library
> > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct...
>
> However, consider:
>
> - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib
> - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author
> - There will never be a successor to libImlib.so.1 which uses libImlib.so.2
> as its soname
I agree with your points but why couldn't they have an libImlib.so.2?
besides the fact that it would be horribly confusing...
>
> So what difference does it make if the library is called libImlib2.so.1 versus
> libImlib.so.2? None really, except that one unnecessarily includes a number
> in the library /name/, and the other increments the library /version/. Which
> makes one much less cumbersome than the other.
My understanding was that you incremented a major version when you made
binary incompatible changes to a library (remove a symbol, etc)... Imlib
2 is a completely new library, which doesn't really share a code
ancestery with Imlib... it was a complete rewrite. I agree it is
somewhat unfortunately named, but i think the right thing was done with
respect to library versioning.
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Eric Dorland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: #61138586
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
PGP signature
