On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:04, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
, the only thing I miss is a rationale for the use of the SONAME with a major.minor structure, instead of the more common major. I think this would help in the understanding why, and resulting in less discussion.
I have no real idea of what's more common, but my rationale for this is as follows ... 1. I assume that changing the major version number is primarily a marketing/presentation issue 2. I assume that we *must*, as a technical issue, change the SONAME when we break backward compatibility 3. I assume that our publicity issues and our technical issues will not be in sync ... we most likely won't want to increment the major version number as often as we need to change the SONAME.
I could even imagine that you use the SONAME major for make and base, while keeping major.minor SONAME for gui/back unit they hit 1.0. Just an idea.
I would prefer to try to keep to a consistent policy across all packages (though for make the SONAME issue is irrelevant as there is no dynamic library in the package), simply because consistency makes it easier to understand and follow.
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
