* Peter Eisentraut ( wrote:
> On 8/15/16 3:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > That would give us an automatic annual change in the minor version.
> > If we ever made an incompatible change in a shlib, we could advance
> > its SO_MAJOR_VERSION but keep this rule for the minor version (there's
> > no law that says we have to reset the minor version when we do that).
> Let's look into getting rid of the minor versions altogether.  They
> don't serve any technical purpose in most cases.  Library packaging
> policies have evolved quite a bit over the years; maybe there is some
> guidance there to make this simpler.

Eh?  Last I checked, we needed minor version bumps to ensure that
binaries compiled against later versions, which might use newer symbols,
don't try to link against older libraries (which wouldn't have those



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to