On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:32:49 +0100, Sebastian Dransfeld wrote: > On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 10:30, Frederic Crozat wrote: >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 04:57:08 +0100, J.A. Magallon wrote: >> >> > >> > On 2002.12.31 Quel Qun wrote: >> >> I am quite confused by the versioning, so please check that, but >> >> the build should go smoothly. Changelogs: >> >> >> >> glib2.0-2.2.0-1mdk.src.rpm: >> >> - Release 2.2.0 >> >> - Added libglib2.0_0 obsolescence (replaced by libglib2.0_2) >> >> >> >> pango-1.2.0-1mdk.src.rpm: >> >> - Release 1.2.0. >> > >> > I will never understand this versioning system. >> > If glib and gtk are now verions 2.2, why is the package named >> > glib2.0-2.2.0 ? Shouldn't it be glib2.2-2.2.0 ? Or better, >> > if the same package name is going to be used for 2.1.x and 2.2, >> > and they are not going to live togheter, call it glib2-2.2.0. >> > Anf how could exist a package named libglib2.0_0-2.1.5 ?? >> > Logical names are libglib2-2.1.5 or libglib2.1-2.1.5...and >> > libglib2-2.2.0 or libglib2.2-2.2.0. >> > >> > (problem is not exclusive of gtk, of course...) >> >> Name for library package is based on library SONAME.. >> >> since glib 2.2 is binary compatible with glib 2.0, its SONAME and its >> major are identical with glib 2.0.. > > So the question is, why did they set the SONAME to be 2.0 if they > planned that the next incompatible release would be 3.x?
Don't ask me.. Ask gtk/glib maintainer :)) -- Frederic Crozat MandrakeSoft
