Eric Lemings wrote:
[...] > Woops. You said executable, not library. So yeah, that's right. :)
Right.
Speaking of which, can anyone think of an actual scenario for doing the latter? Just curious.
Deploying an executable linked with 4.2.1 on a system that has 4.2.0 but not 4.2.1 installed. I agree that people will hardly ever want to replace newer version with an older one (except when the newer one is worse that the older). It's that uncommon to deploy programs built on newer systems on older ones (although not all OS vendors support this). Martin
