On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:01:24 -0400
"TJ Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found a minor annoyance. When building 3.93.1, the lame executable and the
> ACM both claim to be 3.93. This was very confusing as I was dling many
> different compiled binaries yet they all claimed to be version 3.93 and not
> 3.93.1, which is what they were.
If I remember correctly 3.93.1 had no change in the code, it was just
because of a bug in "configure" or because of a missing file in the
archive... I can't remember.
Let's not care about the specific reason, the intend of "3.93.1" was to
have an unique archive filename which differs from 3.93. There was no
change in the algorithms used to produce a MP3, so if you have a 3.93
binary you're fine, regardless if it comes from a 3.93 archive or from a
3.93.1 archive.
If there had been a major change of the source (e.g. any change which
results in a different binary), we would have used 3.94 instead, as this
version number is used in the binary, and only with this number you can
differentiate between the binaries.
As we don't plan to use such macro-version changes in the future to
provide the possibility to generate binaries with such a version (a
change in the binary results in a change of the x.y version number,
there's no need for a macro-version), we don't need this change (sorry
to tell you this, but the change isn't large, so I don't think you lost
much time for it).
Regardless: Thank you for your effort, I hope you will continue to care
about LAME.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
The best things in life are free, but the
expensive ones are still worth a look.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
_______________________________________________
mp3encoder mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
