Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Another couple of questions that turned up for me and are not > dealt with in HACKING (resp. README-alpha):
Thanks for catching these! We should capture the concensus in HACKING... > Do I have to increase the serial on libtool.m4 before releasing? > Or after releasing? No, because people might like to use CVS versions (once their favourite patches have been incorporated for example), and we want to support them too. The serial on each M4 file should be incremented each time the interface changes, independently of release schedules. For M4 files on branches, we ought to be using cvs like `.' delimited #serial numbers, otherwise a busy branch might end up with a serial number that overtakes the trunk :-o Only version.m4 does this right at the moment. > Also the library version of libltdl in libltdl/Makefile.am, right? > (libltdl hasn't changed yet from the previous release, but I will > try to incorporate the memleak patch). Same answer -- in order to support people who use CVS versions of libtool, the libltdl library versions should be incremented at the time we change the interface. Supporting branched revisions is more difficult here, because we need to be sure that a branch release doesn't 'catch up' with the trunk and start using the same interface numbers that were once used on an older trunk revision. I think the best way to prevent these problems is to incorporate the branch number in the libltdl soname. I think -release is ugly, but it is all we have right now. Releases from branch-1-5 haven't used it thus far, and 1.5.16 doesn't break binary compatibility with 1.5.14, so for branch-1-5 it is too late already I think. For branch-2-0, I think we should start using `-release 2.0' right away. Opinions? Cheers, Gary. -- Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org} Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature