>From: Henning Meier-Geinitz <[email protected]> >Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:34:09 +0100 ... >On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:09:57PM +0100, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote: >> http://www.meier-geinitz.de/sane/sane2/ > >Now versioning and naming. Not all of this is strictly SANE standard >stuff, but let's start with it: > >| Chapter 4: The SANE Application Programmer Interface (API) >http://www.meier-geinitz.de/sane/sane2/0.07/doc009.html#s4 > ... >Ok speaking of libraries: The names will be libsane2.so, >libsane2-dll.so, libsane2-mustek.so and so on, I guess? We should keep >in mind that we don't misuse libool's version info again. > >The libraries go to .../lib/sane/ again (as with sane/sane2.h)? > >What about the config files: /etc/sane2.d/dll.conf or, >/etc/sane.d/dll2.conf?
There is already a "microtek2.conf", because there are microtek and microtek2 backends. Could there be conflicts between old/new files in .../include/sane, too ? If the directories were renamed to "sane2" for SANEv2, then one could have coexisting SANEv1 and SANEv2 installations, which might be a good thing. Or not. (If so, frontends/metabackends/etc could look in the SANEv1 directory for old backends...) >Now versions: >| 4.1 Version Control >http://www.meier-geinitz.de/sane/sane2/0.07/doc010.html > >| SANE version control also includes a minor version number and a build >| revision. While control of these numbers remains with the implementor >| of a backend, the recommended use is as follows. The minor version is >| incremented with each official release of a backend. The build >| revision is increased with each build of a backend. > >Currently we have lot's of different version numbers. SANE standard, >sane-distribution, and backends. I hope we can merge the last two. > >So why don't we use only two numbers for SANE releases like 2.0, 2.1, >2.23? We haven't needed the second number until now and I see no >reason for it. So the distribution would use e.g. 2.4 and a backend >that is included would use 2.4.something with something is the backend >build or version number. So you immediately know which SANE version >was used. Fine with me: (STANDARDS-VERSION).(RELEASE-NUMBER) If the standard itself had a minor number (used for incremental, backwards- -compatible changes/improvements/clarifications), then I would say that should end up in there. But it doesn't. (Right?) (I never quite understood the version number thing --- microtek.c always just tracked the SANE release (using V_MAJOR/V_MINOR), and had its own internal version code for debugging purposes.) -matt m.
