Yep you are right... hadn't looked at the soname naming. I expected the
a soname Major, not Major.Minor.
Maybe that should be the real discussion then if this naming convention
is still appropriate?
Dennis
Helge Hess wrote:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 16:01, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
Currently the freque
On Oct 5, 2006, at 16:01, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
Currently the frequency in which we jump Major release numbers, and
thus breaking the ABI are not frequent.
Thats incorrect. For GNUstep the soname is Major.Minor, not Major.
Which is correct because the soname compatibility indeed broke for
ev
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006, at 12:46, David Ayers wrote:
I'm almost indifferent on the subject. But in practice I believe people
will unknowingly break binary compatibility and forget to bump the SO
name. I think this is worse than forcing folks to recompile apps just
beca
To quote my own documentation at
http://ocean.made-it.com/Documents/Library.html
The so-name versioning system is described almost everywhere as:
Versioning convention says we have three release numbers:
1. major release number
2. minor release number
3. micro release number
Micro r
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
can we have less version numbers?
say synchronize the ones of gnustep-make, base, gui, back?
i know it doesn't really fit here, but i will keep suggesting this
until
it happens (eventually, some day)
Currently there is the Startup package w
--- Matt Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Richard Frith-Macdonald
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems to me that it should be possible to
> > catalogue and check
> > externally available symbols (classes, functions,
> > variables and
> > constants) using standard tools to examine t
--- Richard Frith-Macdonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 12:46, David Ayers wrote:
>
> > I'm almost indifferent on the subject. But in
> practice I believe
> > people
> > will unknowingly break binary compatibility and
> forget to bump the SO
> > name. I think this is w
On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:45, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006, at 12:46, David Ayers wrote:
I'm almost indifferent on the subject. But in practice I believe
people
will unknowingly break binary compatibility and forget to bump the SO
name. I think this is worse than forcing folks to
can we have less version numbers?
say synchronize the ones of gnustep-make, base, gui, back?
i know it doesn't really fit here, but i will keep suggesting this until
it happens (eventually, some day)
guerkan
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@
On Oct 5, 2006, at 07:31, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
If I seem incredibly slow in understanding what you mean by 'stable',
Sorry, seems I can't really explain stuff in a compatible way? ;-)
Well, its actually not "my understanding of stable" but the
requirements enforced by soname versio
On 4 Oct 2006, at 12:46, David Ayers wrote:
I'm almost indifferent on the subject. But in practice I believe
people
will unknowingly break binary compatibility and forget to bump the SO
name. I think this is worse than forcing folks to recompile apps just
because the SO name bumped even tho
Test results for GNUstep as of Thu Oct 5 06:34:16 EDT 2006
If a particular system failed compilation, the logs for that system will
be placed at ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/testfarm
If you would like to be a part of this automated testfarm, see
http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Developer_FAQ#How_ca
12 matches
Mail list logo
