On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:25:59 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 06/30/2010 05:07 PM, dma...@netspace.org wrote:
The instructions give a clear flowchart about what sorts of library
changes should result in what changes to the -version-info flag. It's
pretty different from other
On 07/01/2010 08:15 AM, dma...@netspace.org wrote:
In summary, I think the proposal simplifies libtool versioning to a great
extent and reduces errors without introducing major drawbacks.
How about a simplified set of variables that are still manually
adjusted? Something like:
On 07/01/2010 04:15 AM, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
VERSION=2.22.5
LAST_INTERFACE_CHANGE=2.22.0
LAST_INTERFACE_BREAK=2.20.0
I like this (though I think you'll need a few more variables to make
this be able to pick up where the version numbers from the previous
system left off).
On 06/30/2010 11:25
On 07/01/2010 03:58 PM, Dan Winship wrote:
On 07/01/2010 04:15 AM, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
VERSION=2.22.5
LAST_INTERFACE_CHANGE=2.22.0
LAST_INTERFACE_BREAK=2.20.0
I like this (though I think you'll need a few more variables to make
this be able to pick up where the version numbers from the
On 07/01/2010 04:15 AM, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
VERSION=2.22.5
LAST_INTERFACE_CHANGE=2.22.0
LAST_INTERFACE_BREAK=2.20.0
This is the only scheme that would not require extent knowledge on how
libtool versioning works.
I can do something like that too.
However, do the libraries that break
On 07/01/2010 02:15 AM, dma...@netspace.org wrote:
INTERFACE_CHANGE=2
INTERFACE_BREAK=2
when you change the interface (in any way) you bump I_C. When you break
backward compatibility, you also bump I_B.
This is very close to what we used to do before (and many libraries do today).
Le jeudi 01 juillet 2010 à 11:35 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
However, do the libraries that break ABI all the time, really bump their major
so-version with every break?
They don’t, and this breaks some systems. Any initiative that reduces
the amount of such breakage is welcome.
This is
Hello guys, I just read a xorg release announcement and found quite
interesting their statistics not only about people but also about
companies behind committers:
http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-July/010706.html
Wouldn't be nice to have this in GNOME releases? :)
Cheers,
--
Jonh
GNOME 2.31.4 Development Release
GNOME 2.31.4 has been released. This is the first release featuring a
number of modules that have switched from GTK+ 2.x to 3, and it also
brings a surprise standalone gdk-pixbuf.
We hope to ramp up the number of modules using GTK+
First of all I'd like to say that I'm not usability specialist (I'm not
event 'normal' user - I'm closer to power user). However after some time
of using the gnome-shell I noted a few problems - and they are more the
minor problems (I believe) in design rather that 'bugs' so I decided to
post it
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 14:21 -0300, Jonh Wendell wrote:
Hello guys, I just read a xorg release announcement and found quite
interesting their statistics not only about people but also about
companies behind committers:
http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-July/010706.html
Wouldn't be
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 14:35 -0700, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 14:21 -0300, Jonh Wendell wrote:
Hello guys, I just read a xorg release announcement and found quite
interesting their statistics not only about people but also about
companies behind committers:
Le mercredi 30 juin 2010, à 17:16 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
Le mercredi 30 juin 2010, à 16:03 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
For some of my other modules, I'm actually waiting on desktop-wide
settings, and in some cases, lockdown keys.
Gah, my fault. I had forgotten about this. I'll
13 matches
Mail list logo
