On Jun 7, 2010, at 10:29 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> How did we ended up with the following situation:
>
> -libmca_common_sm_so_version=1:0:0
> -libmca_common_mx_so_version=0:0:0
> +libmca_common_sm_so_version=2:0:0
> +libmca_common_mx_so_version=1:0:0
>
> Where the same type of component (commo
Totally insane ... but I was not talking about your rationale. ^^
How did we ended up with the following situation:
-libmca_common_sm_so_version=1:0:0
-libmca_common_mx_so_version=0:0:0
+libmca_common_sm_so_version=2:0:0
+libmca_common_mx_so_version=1:0:0
Where the same type of component (common
Hi Jeff,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 09:34:16PM CEST:
> SHORT VERSION: We broke ABI from the 1.4 series to the v1.5 series. I
> propose changing all the libtool .so version numbers as shown below to
> enforce that break. Can someone sanity check this?
Looks sane to me, with the
SHORT VERSION: We broke ABI from the 1.4 series to the v1.5 series. I propose
changing all the libtool .so version numbers as shown below to enforce that
break. Can someone sanity check this?
Index: VERSION
===
--- VERSION (re
