Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The sonames for gtk+ are not reasonable regardless of the 1.3
> development series, because they're tied to 'versions' in the stable
> releases as well. Or were there no gtk+ functions at all that
> changed ABI between 1.0 and 1.2.x?
What are you talking about? The soname of libgtk 1.2.10 is
"libgtk-1.2.so.0". What version from the 1.0 series had this soname?
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Mich�l Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > *sigh* perhaps not such a good idea, packaging preview-type
> > packages for Debian.
I think you're doing a good thing, FWIW.
> > Note that both Red
> > Hat and Mandrake seems to have no difficulty just
> > calling the packages (lib)gtk+2 and (lib)glib2 [...]
They have no problems putting a development snapshot of gcc into a
package bearing the next version number as well. Marketing-driven
companies are not a good lead for Debian.
> If it sees the public eye, and it's binary-incompatible, it merits its own
> major so number. Anything else is a hazard for our users, regardless of what
> developers think of the situation.
Indeed. But why is that not the case here?
--
Robbe
signature.ng
