Robert Story wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:14:43 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Why jump up to c:r:a==9:0:0?
Because that's what Wes proposed. Initially, I thought of just going to 6:0:0,
since everything currently uses lib*.so.5, but if you look at the previous
version, you'll see that 5 is determined from current-age, so it 5.2.1 was
7:2:1. Thus 8 is the next free number, which Wes proposed using for the 5.1.x
line. Thus 9 for 5.2, and 10 for 5.3.
OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
