On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 16:41:02 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > >> Why did "Do not rely anymore on gperf and m4 following removal of deprecated >> atoms." do this: >> >> -libxcb_util_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 0:0:0 -no-undefined >> +libxcb_util_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 1:0:0 -no-undefined >> >> I don't see this change requiring a major version bump which should >> only be done for binary compatibility changes. Yes, you removed the >> xcb_atom_get_predefined and xcb_atom_get_name_predefined functions, >> but not in a binary incompatible way, so you should not have bumped >> the major version which requires relinking every library and >> application that links against the library. >> > How are the xcb_atom_get_predefined/xcb_atom_get_name_predefined > removals not binary incompatible?? Nothing else changed, just the removal of the symbols. All other functions did not change their signatures. Think about this from the libc perspective. libc *may have* strlcat or not, but they're named the same because all functions in libc have consistent signatures. _______________________________________________ xorg@lists.x.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
