http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4422
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-30-07 02:01 ------- A shiny new interface 12 was created and the initial thought was to disontinue the old interface 10. Both generations share a common subset of functions and types used widely, and only the extra parts are different. It was the intention to not continue the extra parts from generation 10. After some time it became clear that application users were to stick to the old generation, just asking for fixes and extensions there which were largely already present in the new generation. That is quite a burden for an opensource developer, supporting two pieces for no money. Consequently, development efforts were invested to merge the interfaces. Instead of starting to write call wrappers in the new source repository 12, the other way was taken to backport features to the source repository 10. Simply because generation 10 was used so widely while 12 was only out for a short time. By theory, zziplib 12.xx and zziplib 10.xx > 10.55 are compatible but it was actually not tested, simply because noone seemed to use 12.xx. So, it would be rightout okay to call it 12.82 instead of the current 10.82 release. As you notice, most software is fine with the common subset of zziplib < 0.1x.50 which is for the posix call wrappers, including the php zip module which is usually the reason that distro makers added zziplib. Most application writers (including game developers) were starting to link a private copy into their application instead of picking the shared library. That's easy since libzzip is just a few dozen kilobyte. And also needed since they were dependent on new features, and distro makers were shipping another version. That history is also the reason why noone did notice things even though developmens are ahead by 50 revisions. It would be good ship a new 0.10.x revision simply for that I can not handle any bugreports about old versions. The code has been changed too much in the last years since 12.2x/10.2x. Since I see that other rpm makers have gone down the same path of assuming 11.x (near redhat) or 12.xx being better than 10.x, I am now thinking to just get away with it and start packaging a zziplib-0.12.82, right out of the sourcetree for zziplib-0.10.82. WDYT, create a symlink .so.12 -> .so.10 and vice versa for the two sister rpm packages? That should do it, me thinks... I am just working on it, the tarball and rpms will be up at sourceforge in just a few minutes. :-)=) cheers, guido -- Configure bugmail: http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ------- Reminder: ------- assigned_to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] status: NEW creation_date: description: zziplib 0.12.xx has been discontinued more than a year ago and all its tarballs DELETEd from the homepage at http://zziplib.sf.net a long time ago. Instead some features were merged back into the succesful line of zziplib 0.10.xx releases. Other vendors have been shipping the STABLE 0.10.75 variant for a long time, todays latest stable release is 0.10.82. btw, this is the author and maintainer of zziplib speaking, and I am shipping valid rpm packages for mandrake directly from the download page at zziplib.sf.net - please do not bother me with bug reports earlier than 0.10.75 including any 0.12.xx version. -- cheers, guido http://google.de/search?q=guidod
