> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Thomas> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be
Thomas> fine with that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which
Thomas> also Dave and Jochen voted against). Did we reach consensus
Thom
Robert Story wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
TA> that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
TA> voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
Well, the issue is wh
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
TA> that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
TA> voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
Well, the issue is whether or not there is a
Robert Story wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:14:43 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Why jump up to c:r:a==9:0:0?
Because that's what Wes proposed. Initially, I thought of just going to 6:0:0,
since everything currently uses lib*.so.5, but if you look at the previous
version, you'll see that 5 is determined
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:14:43 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Robert Story wrote:
TA> > move to libtool recommended versioning scheme
TA>
TA> Why jump up to c:r:a==9:0:0?
Because that's what Wes proposed. Initially, I thought of just going to 6:0:0,
since everything currently uses lib*.so.5, but if you lo
