CVSROOT:/cvsroot/libtool
Module name:libtool
Branch: branch-2-0
Changes by: Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/05/13 07:47:45
Modified files:
. : ChangeLog THANKS
Log message:
* THANKS: Updated.
CVSWeb URLs:
Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do not change the predefined value for $prefix. Tell them to look at
./configure --help
for possible configuration options, educate them about --prefix! :-)
OK, the default location for installed libraries is /usr/local/lib.
I installed the
Howdy all!
I'm converting the open source netcdf scientific data package to
libtool, and I have a question.
We had been in the habit of releasing binaries with each release for
each of the 6 or 7 systems we support (Linux, AIX, Sun, Irix, Mac OSX,
Cygwin, etc.)
Is it possible/advisable to
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
It used to be that we could always count on /usr/local/lib, but now,
we can't?
I would not happen to know what we changed. Which system?
The problem system (at the moment) is a Sun, but I am really trying to
grasp how this will work in the general case.
Howdy all!
I have been converting the popular (with climate scientists) open
source scientific data package, netcdf, to use libtool.
I am rather confused about the version numbers and how they work.
Let us say I release with a version 0.0.0.
Then some users write a program, and link to my
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
How does the version number get used in this situation? That is, is
there any time on the users machine that the linker notices that he is
now linking to 1.0.0 instead of 0.0.0?
Yes, the linker notices it when it runs. :-)
Existing programs continue to use
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
How does the version number get used in this situation? That is, is
there any time on the users machine that the linker notices that he is
now linking to 1.0.0 instead of 0.0.0?
Yes, the linker notices it
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
I hope things are well in the Great State of Texas today!
OK, so an existing program, linked to version 0.0.0, will continue to
use the old version of the library?
Yes. If there is an implementation change (e.g. bug-fix) with no
interface change, then if
$Bv!!yL5NAEPO?%-%c%s%Z!%sCf!y!v(B
$B!!$d$C$Q$j=P0)$$J$i$46a=j$G2q$($kAjj$,$$$k$H(B
[EMAIL PROTECTED](B(^$B(B^*)$B!?%o!A%$$G$9%M%'!A(B
$B!!Ev%5%$%H$OA49qCO0hJL$N;TD.BC10L$G6a$/$NM'C#C5$7$,$G$-$^$9!#(B
$B(Bhttp://www.jumpb2.net/?imasugu
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That implies that when I install a new version, the old version says
around. Is that correct?
Yes. Unless it is explicitly deleted.
Suppose that we discover a bug which doesn't require any API change to
fix, but which will cause he users' computers
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That implies that when I install a new version, the old version says
around. Is that correct?
Yes. Unless it is explicitly deleted.
Suppose that we discover a bug which doesn't require any API change to
fix, but
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Daniel Reed wrote:
People using software that depends on libexample's 1 series should not be
confused by the new release for the older 0 series, because 0.0.6 is still
less than 1.0.anything. The only down side is that installing libexample
0.0.6 might cause libexample.so
Daniel Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. Unless it is explicitly deleted.
Suppose that we discover a bug which doesn't require any API change to
fix, but which will cause he users' computers to go into
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
So this is not actually replacing libexample-0.0.5, it is adding
libexample-0.0.6, and the loader is smart enough to automatically use
that in preference to libexample-0.0.5.
Right
Is that correct? And libexample-0.0.5 stays on the users' systems
until they
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Ed Hartnett wrote:
Daniel Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many projects will continue to make bug fix releases even if a newer
API is currently under development--including Libtool itself. For this
example scenario, if libexample-1.0.2 is the current release, but a
critical bug
fill version:
www.cjg9xtu0y5cjrdu.nbsprmsb.com
dwnload version:
www.b0x7w0dzf4tacet.aphraimnhl.com
___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Here's a few questions for you:
1. Are you having trouble finding people to joinup under you or
buy from your new business?
2. Can't promote won't promote?
3. Wasting your time?
4. Spending more money than you make from your business?
5. Need joinups and or sales within a week or two?
6.
On 14/05/2005, at 1:33 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
How does the version number get used in this situation? That is, is
there any time on the users machine that the linker notices that
he is
now linking to 1.0.0 instead of 0.0.0?
Yes, the linker notices it when it runs. :-)
Existing programs
On 14/05/2005, at 3:45 AM, Ed Hartnett wrote:
But I don't understand why it's not 0.5.0 and 0.6.0. That is,
wouldn't
it be a case of incrementing the minor version number, the middle
number?
If libexample 0.0.6 is merely a bug fix, it is usually customary to
only
updated the least significant
19 matches
Mail list logo
