Camel was never even considering keeping a compatible api. Just recognising the problem doesn't fix it. So, what is to be done to achieve that?
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 18:36 +0530, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: > The evolution-data-server uses BASE_VERSION for packaging related > information (hence eds is 1.3.x) while the camel/libebook/libecal > libraries continue to use API_VERSION which is 1.2 (so pc files and > third party configure scripts remain unaffected). In principle, the goal > was to preserve the API during this release - which we were not too > successful at, though. > > Harish > > On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 14:43 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > Hmm, there's some issues with the versioning in libcamel and eds in > > general. > > > > Some things are using API_VERSION, some BASE_VERSION, but they don't > > match. > > > > None of the libraries have been changed to match the version, i.e. > > libcamel is still libcamel-1.2. So all that soname versioning only > > creates dead libraries on our disk, and serves no purpose to users, and > > will break things anyway. e.g. if you have evo 2.4 and evo 2.2 > > installed, any code you compile against evo 2.2 will actually link with > > evo 2.4 libraries, and probably not work. > > > > _______________________________________________ > evolution-hackers maillist - evolution-hackers@lists.ximian.com > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - evolution-hackers@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers