[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: IRIX and .so numbers

From: Nick Blievers
Subject: RE: IRIX and .so numbers
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:56:46 +1100

        I had a chat with some longtime SGI ppl, and noone could think of any
reason why "0" for the version number should cause a problem, so I think
this should be fine. Leaving a comment can't hurt tho! :) Also, maybe this
hasn't been noticed as most build systems are perhaps a little more flexible
than the openoffice one...?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary V. Vaughan [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, 11 January 2002 7:26
> To: Robert Boehne
> Cc: Nick Blievers; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: IRIX and .so numbers
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:52:01PM -0600, Robert Boehne wrote:
> > I've been poking around a little on IRIX, and I can't find anything that
> > wouldn't allow "0" for a version.
> Okay.  If you are able to build and link against some substantial libtool
> library using project with the ``+1'' removed, feel free to
> commit that patch
> to HEAD and branch-1-4.
> I am still somewhat surprised that this code has generated no
> complaints in
> the intervening years until now...  perhaps you should leave a
> comment near
> the change so that it is easy to undo if we discover an unforseen
> consequence
> further down the line?
> Cheers,
>       Gary.
> --
>   ())_. Gary V. Vaughan     gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org)
>   ( '/  Research Scientist  http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk       ,_())____
>   / )=  GNU Hacker          http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
> \'      `&
> `(_~)_  Tech' Author        http://sources.redhat.com/autobook   =`---d__/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]