You are correct. I'll put out libcdio 0.92 sometime today.
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Chris Clayton <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > I've noticed that the version of libiso9660 produced by building > libcdio-0.91 is less than the version produced by > building libcdio-0.83. Whilst I can't claim to fully understand the > libtool versioning scheme, this does seem odd. > Installing the rpm I have built fails because other applications depend on > libiso9660.so.8. Consequently, I looked at > the related guidance notes in lib/iso9660/Makefile.am (and the libtool > info page) and am a bit puzzled about the values > I see in the libiso9660_la_{CURRENT,REVISION,AGE} variables. > > In v0.83 the values are CURRENT = 8, REVISION = 0 and AGE= 0. In v0.91 > CURRENT and REVISION are unchanged, but AGE has > been incremented to 1. According to the notes, the only reason to > increment AGE is that interfaces have been added since > the last public release - i.e. the condition in note 5 is true. If note 5 > is true, then note 4 must also have been true, > which means that CURRENT should now have the value 9. > > Of course, I'm assuming here that one works through notes 3 to 6 in order, > amending the variables according to the truth > of the condition. That may be an incorrect assumption, but, having read > the notes in the info page, I can't see how the > dynamic linker could work if any other method of arriving at the version > numbering was used. > > I'm not subscribed, so please cc me on any reply. > > Thanks > > Chris > >
