On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 11:28 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Just ignore me, my own typo confused me, sorry.On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 10:59 PM, Max Horn wrote:
So, the only case to worry about is when AGE is non zero. As I see it, the new code should behave completly correct in that case, while the old code was simply wrong. The question is, what happens to compatibility with this change... well, anything that had a non-ZERO AGE will suddenly have a *lower* compatibility version. So potentially, problems might occur if a library with a non-zero AGE is rebuilt, but its dependencies aren't. Not sure how to make a smooth transition in that case.
Actually, I just noticed a bug in your patch :-)
Peter
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Take your first step towards giving your online business a competitive advantage. Test-drive a Thawte SSL certificate - our easy online guide will show you how. Click here to get started: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0027en
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
