On Monday 24 February 2014 16:13:48 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> In the tech preview release the libraries were all versioned 5.0.0
> with SOVERSION of 5. In alpha 1 that became 4.96.0 with SOVERSION of
> 4. The SOVERSION will presumably go back to 5 at some point before
> release. It's quite hassl
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 19:15:05 šumski wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 of February 2014 18:45:15 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 February 2014 17:12:37 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 04:55:43PM +0100, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > > OK, but then the said change is either in the
On Tuesday 25 of February 2014 18:45:15 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 February 2014 17:12:37 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 04:55:43PM +0100, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > OK, but then the said change is either in the packaging or in our own
> > > cmake
> > > files as we'd ha
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 17:12:37 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 04:55:43PM +0100, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > OK, but then the said change is either in the packaging or in our own
> > cmake
> > files as we'd have to drop the SOVERSION later on when our version becomes
> > 5.0.0.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 04:55:43PM +0100, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> OK, but then the said change is either in the packaging or in our own cmake
> files as we'd have to drop the SOVERSION later on when our version becomes
> 5.0.0. So it's really a question of which is more error prone.
No change woul
Hello,
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 14:32:27 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Beside I still don't see a clear motive behind that change (Jonathan
> > hinted at helping with packaging but it looks like not all packagers
> > agree).
>
> It n
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Beside I still don't see a clear motive behind that change (Jonathan hinted
> at
> helping with packaging but it looks like not all packagers agree).
It needs packaging changes whenever the soversion changes which means
errors can b
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 13:06:25 David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 February 2014 08:04:16 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Monday 24 February 2014 20:23:25 šumski wrote:
> > > On Monday 24 of February 2014 16:13:48 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Shall I do this change to the framew
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 08:04:16 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Monday 24 February 2014 20:23:25 šumski wrote:
> > On Monday 24 of February 2014 16:13:48 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > Shall I do this change to the frameworks?
> >
> > My opinion as a fellow packager is - please don't. IM
On Monday 24 February 2014 20:23:25 šumski wrote:
> On Monday 24 of February 2014 16:13:48 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> ...
>
> > Shall I do this change to the frameworks?
>
> My opinion as a fellow packager is - please don't. IMHO, now that the
> versioning is fully correct, it would be really weir
On Monday 24 of February 2014 16:13:48 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
...
> Shall I do this change to the frameworks?
My opinion as a fellow packager is - please don't. IMHO, now that the
versioning is fully correct, it would be really weird to have soversion 5 at
version 4.97.0
Cheers,
Hrvoje
> Jon
11 matches
Mail list logo
