> I did some more thinking about -version-info vs -revision. I think > I now understand things better and we can do it either way. With > -version-info, the version passed will be different from the release > version. Because Xerces-C++ release numbers are governed by the > interface compatibility (e.g., major releases are backwards- > incompatible, minor releases are interface-compatible but not binary > compatible, and build releases are binary compatible), the age > component will always be 0.
BTW, is that true? I think I'm confused then...with -revision, you don't have binary compatible releases: "Note that this option causes a modification of the library name, so do not use it unless you want to break binary compatibility with any past library releases." I think if you're trying to preserve the option to have a 3.0.1, you're going about it incorrectly. That's what versioning is for. If you put the name into the filename, you would have to omit any public indication that the library is for 3.0.1 and not for 3.0. That seems like a bad idea, so I don't think the trade-off here is neutral. -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
