> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> It's still the most likely cause. Any volunteers willing to join me fighting
TA> 64-bit compiler warnings? I won't get far w/o some old-timer's help.
I'm willing to help review what you run into. Each case needs to be
considered careful
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> TA> My vote is still for a gap of 1, reserved for emergencies
> TA> (major/security issues).
>
> I'll even suffer and say a gap of 2 may even make sense.
I could probably stand it.
> Of course, it's too late for 5.2,5.3 anyway so we're only talking
> about new stuff (5.4 an
> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> libwombat.so.1
DS> libwombat.so.1.3
DS> libwombat.so.1.3.6.1
DS> Isn't that exactly the sort of approach needed for this situation -
DS> later libraries on a given patch branch should be "mostly compatible"
DS> with earlier ones?
DS> But
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> So let's find a compromise for a realistic position here. How many
TA> releases are we even doing in a branch? We've EOLed 5.1.x after 5.1.4,
TA> so even if we would have introduced incomatible changes for *each*
TA> release in that branc
Robert Story wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:41:32 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> I must admit that I'm drawn to Wes' original position - a patches
> DS> branch shouldn't include incompatible changes, so ought to continue
> DS> with the same library number throughout.
>
> I agree too. The hardline posit
Dave Shield wrote:
> I must admit that I'm drawn to Wes' original position - a patches
> branch shouldn't include incompatible changes, so ought to continue
> with the same library number throughout.
> In which case I'd suggest using '54' for the 5.4.x branch.
>(Still relatively large, but not
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:41:32 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> I must admit that I'm drawn to Wes' original position - a patches
DS> branch shouldn't include incompatible changes, so ought to continue
DS> with the same library number throughout.
I agree too. The hardline position would be that a bug that cou
On 18/08/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So Dave, do you really think we should go this route (eg 540), or were you
> just throwing it out to see what the reaction would be?
Why Robert, I'm shocked to the deepest core of my being that you could
even *begin* to contemplate that I migh
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:02:00 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Dave Shield wrote:
TA> > On 17/08/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TA> >> And I'm still waiting for comments from Thomas and Dave, and anyone
TA> >> else who has an opinion.
TA> >
TA> > OK - I'm going to be slightly naughty, and propo
> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> The library version for release 5.4 should be 540.
holy cow batman, that number is larger than can fit in a char!
One of the reasons I think that +10 is too large is that I'm just not
comfortable increasing our library version number on t
Dave Shield wrote:
> On 17/08/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And I'm still waiting for comments from Thomas and Dave, and anyone
>> else who has an opinion.
>
> OK - I'm going to be slightly naughty, and propose a completely new
> numbering scheme.
>
> The library version for rele
On 17/08/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I'm still waiting for comments from Thomas and Dave, and anyone
> else who has an opinion.
OK - I'm going to be slightly naughty, and propose a completely new
numbering scheme.
The library version for release 5.4 should be 540.
That would
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:07:02 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> > "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WH>
WH> Robert> So, what I proposed is that we leave a little wiggle room in
WH> Robert> the versioning. [...]
WH>
WH> TA> Since 5.4 is approaching, we finally need to come up with a
WH> TA>
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> So, what I proposed is that we leave a little wiggle room in
Robert> the versioning. Can't do much about 5.1 and 5.2 - they are
Robert> already sandwiched (well, 5.1 isn't yet, but it's about to
Robert> me. More on that in a sec). Bu
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Robert> So, what I proposed is that we leave a little wiggle room in
> Robert> the versioning. Can't do much about 5.1 and 5.2 - they are
> Robert> already sandwiched (well, 5.1 isn't yet, but it's about to
> Robert> me. More on that in a sec). But we can make room for 5.3. I
some background material, here are the
Robert> comments regarding updating the versions from Makefile.top:
Ug. Remind me again who convinced me this was a good thing to do?
The libtool versioning system has *so* many problems. multiple branch
support does appear to be one of the worst. sigh...
So, we've done the 'right' thing with respect to libtool versioning now, but
we seem to have painted ourselves into a corner. Starting with some background
material, here are the comments regarding updating the versions from
Makefile.top:
# use libtool versioning the way they r
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Thomas> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be
Thomas> fine with that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which
Thomas> also Dave and Jochen voted against). Did we reach consensus
Thom
Robert Story wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
TA> that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
TA> voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
Well, the issue is wh
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
TA> that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
TA> voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
Well, the issue is whether or not there is a
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
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:14:43 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Robert Story wrote:
TA> > move to libtool recommended versioning scheme
TA>
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 lo
Robert Story wrote:
Modified Files:
Tag: V5-2-patches
Makefile.top
Log Message:
move to libtool recommended versioning scheme
Why jump up to c:r:a==9:0:0?
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)
---
SF.Net email
23 matches
Mail list logo
