On 02/10/10 12:09, Denis Arnaud wrote: > 2010/10/1 Mateusz Loskot <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > To all interested package maintainers, share your comments and > vote for your favourite option please. > > > I believe whatever the version numbering, you feel comfortable with, is > fine for me, as long as the soname version is consistent with that and > easy to maintain. > [...]
I've been running the versioning wanking for long time :-) However, we've decided in the team to cut it down and basically make versioning as simple as "no promises" as it has been cultivated so far. It means, nothing has changed in this matter. Here is the relevant final commit: SOCI version scheme has been fixed to never promise API or ABI stability, thus for Unix SOCI_SOVERSION as well as SOCI_ABI_VERSION used for DLLs naming on Windows are now set based on full SOCI_VERSION string. http://soci.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=soci/soci;a=commit;h=fca35308 Users may expect to get installed, for example, on Unix libsoci_core.so.3.1.0 libsoci_core.so -> libsoci_core.so.3.1.0 and on Windows soci_core_3_1_0.dll soci_core_3_1_0.lib I hope it make sense. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ Soci-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
