Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Sep 1999, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> > I'm more tempted to revert to the major/minor versioning. Every change
> > triggers a minor version bump, but only if the library is still backwards
> > compatible with minor version 0 and the same major version. Otherwise a
> > major version bump is required.
>
> A change to the LPI deserves a version change. Changes which only patch/correct
> the implementation do not require one.
If the libraries are different, give them different versions. It's a simple
rule.
> > This only works if the dynamic linker uses a slightly different approach
> > when linking:
> > Linking is performed in such a way that if a program is linked against
> > version x.y of libfoo, then every libfoo with version x.z and z>=y is a
> > valid candidate. If there're more than one candidate .......
>
> Rather than force this on the loader, simply use links in the file system to
> point to the "current" one. That pushes the burden to the install Makefile
> where it is executed only once.
You are missing the point.
--
Marcel Moolenaar mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/
The FreeBSD project mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
