>>> On 10/25/2007 at 11:06 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brad:
>
> On 10/25/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> My vote would be that anything within the 3.1.x version must remain
> backward compatible. If a patch breaks backwar
Hi Brad:
On 10/25/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My vote would be that anything within the 3.1.x version must remain
> backward compatible. If a patch breaks backward compatibility, then it must
> only be applied to a future 3.x, 4.x, etc. version.
Okay, it sounds like your
My vote would be that anything within the 3.1.x version must remain backward
compatible. If a patch breaks backward compatibility, then it must only be
applied to a future 3.x, 4.x, etc. version.
Brad
>>> On 10/25/2007 at 10:27 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernard Li"
<[EMAIL PROTECT
Thanks Marcus for the clarifications.
So basically the question is really how much we care about library
compatibilities and whether we want users to be able to install
multiple versions of libganglia/ganglia at the same time.
Something along the lines of, whether you want to allow
libganglia.so.
On 2007-10-19 11:22:53 -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
> Currently the SONAME for libganglia in trunk is:
>
> SONAME libganglia-3.1.0.so.0
>
> Is there any particular reason why it is version specific? i.e. I
> suppose this allows the user to install multiple versions of
> libganglia with differen
Currently the SONAME for libganglia in trunk is:
SONAME libganglia-3.1.0.so.0
Is there any particular reason why it is version specific? i.e. I
suppose this allows the user to install multiple versions of
libganglia with different versions, but is this really necessary?
This would ultimate
