Den 2010-05-04 20:00 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
Errrm, is that really so? I tend to agree with Jef here...
I take it that your response is to my "... it will work" sentence, not
the paragraph below that.
Ah, indeed.
The algorithm *could* be interpreted such that e.g. the interface change
"int foo(void)" -> "int foo(int)" is an interface addition of int foo(int)
and an interface remove of int foo(void), thus triggering both #5 and #6.
But in that case "changed" need not be mentioned in #4 either. So, because
"changed" is mentioned in #4, it also needs to be explicitly mentioned
in #6.
Ah, ok. Yes, you're right. Feel free to commit a patch to
s/removed/& or changed/ in 6.
I've pushed the attached patch...
Cheers,
Peter
2010-05-05 Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se>
Clarify versioning algorithm documentation.
* doc/libtool.texi (Updating version info): Be explicit
about setting age to zero on interface change.
Reported by Jef Driesen <jefdrie...@hotmail.com>
--
They are in the crowd with the answer before the question.
> Why do you dislike Jeopardy?
diff --git a/doc/libtool.texi b/doc/libtool.texi
index f73f5a7..bbc22f4 100644
--- a/doc/libtool.texi
+++ b/doc/libtool.texi
@@ -2927,8 +2927,8 @@ If any interfaces have been added since the last public
release, then
increment @var{age}.
@item
-If any interfaces have been removed since the last public release, then
-set @var{age} to 0.
+If any interfaces have been removed or changed since the last public
+release, then set @var{age} to 0.
@end enumerate
@stro...@emph{never}} try to set the interface numbers so that they
_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
