Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:09:26 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <TrimYourCc@NUXI.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Message-ID: <20010213130926.A79651@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200102131941.f1DJffU66659@mobile.wemm.org>; from peter@netplex.com.au on Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:41:41AM -0800 References: <200102131717.f1DHHNW39519@harmony.village.org> <200102131941.f1DJffU66659@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:41:41AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > When libc is built, we could link it with "-h libc.so.5-13-Feb-2001" Actually I think I like libc.so.5.<date> to stand for a development version of libc.so.5 better than the libc.so.500 scheme. libc.so.5.<date> gives a better matching of what the shared version number would be when released. It also makes it very clear when the incompatible change happened. (encoding of date left unspecified) Opinions? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010213130926.A79651>