Hi Andrew. Here's how to bump the numbers for libraries (from LIBGTOP-VERSION):
# Making releases: # LIBGTOP_MICRO_VERSION += 1; # LIBGTOP_INTERFACE_AGE += 1; # LIBGTOP_BINARY_AGE += 1; # if any functions have been added, set LIBGTOP_INTERFACE_AGE to 0. # if backwards compatibility has been broken, # set LIBGTOP_BINARY_AGE and LIBGTOP_INTERFACE_AGE to 0. # So we need to make a new release. Regards, Kevin On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 10:12, Andrew Sobala wrote: > Hi Kevin, Sven, > > I released 2.0.2 to a) get the security fix incorporated, and b) get > translations released. I don't understand the code and I was strictly > just making the release. > > If I bumped the soname, I've ****ed up. Binary compatibility has not > changed. I'm not sure how I did it, though: > > Index: configure.in > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/gnome/libgtop/configure.in,v > retrieving revision 1.88.4.22.2.21 > retrieving revision 1.88.4.22.2.34 > diff -u -r1.88.4.22.2.21 -r1.88.4.22.2.34 > --- configure.in 13 Jan 2003 02:57:51 -0000 1.88.4.22.2.21 > +++ configure.in 11 May 2003 14:36:23 -0000 1.88.4.22.2.34 > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ > > LIBGTOP_MAJOR_VERSION=2 > LIBGTOP_MINOR_VERSION=0 > -LIBGTOP_MICRO_VERSION=1 > +LIBGTOP_MICRO_VERSION=2 > > LIBGTOP_VERSION=$LIBGTOP_MAJOR_VERSION.$LIBGTOP_MINOR_VERSION.$LIBGTOP_MICRO_VERSION > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(libgtop, $LIBGTOP_VERSION) > LIBGTOP_INTERFACE_AGE=1 > @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ > AC_CHECK_FUNCS(getcwd gettimeofday getwd putenv strdup strtoul uname) > > dnl ## 'es_ES' is only needed for format numbers different of 'es' > -ALL_LINGUAS="az be bg ca cs da de el es es_ES fi fr ga gl hu ja ko lv > ms nl nn no pl pt pt_BR ru sk sl sv tr uk vi zh_CN zh_TW" > +ALL_LINGUAS="am ar az be bg ca cs da de el es es_ES et fa fi fr ga gl > he hu id it ja ko lv mk ml mn ms nl nn no pl pt pt_BR ro ru sk sl sr > [EMAIL PROTECTED] sv tr uk vi zh_CN zh_TW" > GETTEXT_PACKAGE=libgtop-2.0 > AC_SUBST(GETTEXT_PACKAGE) > > ... and those are the only changes in configure.in. > > Kevin, could you look at this? I don't know how the soname changed, so > don't know how to fix it. I'm lame. > > Sorry, guys. Please keep me informed. > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 21:46, Kevin Vandersloot wrote: > > Hi Sven. I'm cc's Andrew Sobala who actually produced the latest > > release. I believe that binary compatibility was not broken between the > > two releases, so the soname change is probably not warrented. > > > > I'm not sure about 2) :( > > > > To clarify Bastien's comments: I'm kinda the maintainer right now since > > I wrote GNOME System Monitor and noone remains to maintain libgtop. > > Unfortunately I know very little about the libgtop code and am a little > > afraid to mess with it ;) > > > > I think everyone agrees that a replacement would be nice (especially > > since libgtop doesn't build on Solaris ATM). Otherwise we need someone > > to step in and really maintain the code. I don't really have to time to > > do it. However, right now there is no replacement available so there is > > no plan to move to a different library. > > > > Regards, > > Kevin > > > > On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 08:29, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > Sven, > > > > > > You said that you contacted upstream, but Martin hasn't been upstream > > > for libgtop for about 2 years. Contact either Kevin Vandersloot (or > > > myself in very very last resort) for problems about libgtop. > > > > > > libgtop is a piece of crap that needs to die, and that nobody wants to > > > take care of. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 10:22, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > libgtop2 is currently broken in debian unstable, and No�l K�the is too > > > > busy to fix it right now. I maintain packages that depend on libgtop2 > > > > and also use others that depend on libgtop2. All these packages have > > > > become unusable since libgtop2 broke. > > > > > > > > I am then trying to prepare a non-maintainer-upload of libgtop2, and > > > > have noticed the following problems : > > > > > > > > 1) The soname of libgtop2 did change in 2.0.2 from 2.0.1 (from > > > > libgtop-2.0.so.0 to libgtop-2.0.so.1). But no mention of this is made > > > > in the ChangeLog. So, the question is this soname change warranted, > > > > because the binary incompatibility did change, or spurious and should > > > > be reverted. > > > > > > > > 2) I noticed that the libgtop2 libraries are built, not against the > > > > libraries currentyl building, but against the installed ones, which is > > > > severly broken, as libgtop-2.0.so.1.0.1 is linked to the older > > > > libgtop_common-2.0.so.0 and libgtop_sysdeps-2.0.so.0, which naturally > > > > don't work once the package is installed. > > > > > > > > This second point, i have had a quick look but i was not able to quickly > > > > fix the build system so this doesn't happen, maybe you could provide me > > > > some insight or hint on how to fix this (or even a patch or new > > > > release ?). > > > > > > > > Hope you don't mind my comments and questions, and again, i am not the > > > > debian maintainer of this package, and Noel may well know these things > > > > already. > > > > > > > > Friendly, > > > > > > > > Sven Luther > > > -- > > > Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > Andrew Sobala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "We made GNOME-VFS support smb: and nfs: URIs. And we made OOo support > GNOME-VFS. Booyakasha!" -- nat
