Hello you can have a math formula to link the tarball version and the libtool one, following what Johnny mentioned :
tarball version micro++ : bug fixes tarball version minor++ : addition of API and micro set to 0 tarball version major++ : API and ABI break and micro and minor set to 0 then, here is what we use in our configure.ac's : m4_define([v_maj], [1]) m4_define([v_min], [18]) m4_define([v_mic], [7]) m4_define([v_ver], [v_maj.v_min.v_mic]) m4_define([lt_cur], [m4_eval(v_maj + v_min)]) m4_define([lt_rev], [v_mic]) m4_define([lt_age], [v_min]) AC_INIT([project], [v_ver], [mail]) .... version_info="lt_cur:lt_rev:lt_age" AC_SUBST([version_info]) and in our Makefile.am's : project_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info @version_info@ regards Vincent Torri On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jonny, > > >> Intentionally releasing new features (turning them ON by default) in >> a patch release is unacceptable behaviour from any serious project. > > I underestimated the effect of the PCF change; the next version will > have this feature off – I have already written that to the mailing > list. Maybe you've missed this. > >> Major number increase: New features that might break backwards >> compatibility >> Minor number increase: New features that DOESN'T break backwards >> compatibility (thus new feature but turned >> OFF default) >> Micro/path number increase: Only bug fixes > > For me, `backwards compatibility' is something related to the ABI. I > have the feeling that you are mixing up software release numbers with > DLL versions. Have a look into `docs/VERSIONS.TXT'. > >> Even your news page states something in the line of "finally we have >> a new 'minor' number increase so we can change default ..." (!) No >> really you can NOT do that in a minor version number bump, you do >> that in a major number bump! > > Definitely not. FreeType 3 would be a major redesign of the library > coming with a new API. In other words, new features are handled with > the `minor' number in the source tarball. Again: the versioning > scheme of the tarball is *completely irrelevant* to the backwards > compatibility of the ABI. > >> Your current ignorance to the versioning standard is not only >> frustrating but directly causing major problems for distributions >> and its users. > > Pfft. You are greatly exaggerating. You are the *first* one who > brings up this complaint! > >> Please take some responsibility and comply with the standard or >> ignore the versioning system and go with systemd-like versioning. > > It's not clear to me why the tone of your e-mail is so hostile. Who > are you in the software world to complain about `frustration' and > `major problems for distributions and its users'? Can you give some > evidence for your claims? And yes, I have read `semver.org' – since > FreeType uses libtool, it relates to DLL versions and *not* to the > tarball versions. > > > Werner > _______________________________________________ > Freetype-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
