[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Version numbering change on IRIX

From: Boehne, Robert
Subject: RE: Version numbering change on IRIX
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:00:03 -0500


IMHO it isn't worth the bother to allow both, I'll just revert patch.
Everyone agree?


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve M. Robbins [mailto:address@hidden]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:21 PM
To: Boehne, Robert; address@hidden
Subject: Re: Version numbering change on IRIX

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:34:33PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Robert,
> > This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
> > about having under Solars/Linux and having under IRIX.
> > Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
> > think of to find out why this was done in the first place, but found
> > none.  I realize this change doesn't "fix" anything, and could potentially
> > cause problems, but these will be transient, and it is consistent with
> > other platforms.
> indeed: breaking every application linked against the old (overwritten)
> version of affected libraries is certainly a problem.  This will be
> transient since people will be forced to rebuild/relink every affected
> application; something I consider a nightmare in big installations,
> especially when libraries used all over the place (like the GCC runtime
> libraries) are affected.
> I can already hear the outcry from affected users and admins; I don't want
> to be in the position to explain to them that their applications had to be
> broken for cosmetic reasons and consistency with other platforms.

I think Rainer has a point.  This change shouldn't be made lightly.

Perhaps the "add 1 for IRIX" behaviour could be made a libtool option
that is ON by default?


reply via email to

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