Re: libtool versioning

[Peter Rosin]

Den 2010-05-04 20:00 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> > Errrm, is that really so? I tend to agree with Jef here...
>
> I take it that your response is to my "... it will work" sentence, not
> the paragraph below that.

Ah, indeed.

> > The algorithm *could* be interpreted such that e.g. the interface change
> > "int foo(void)" ->  "int foo(int)" is an interface addition of int foo(int)
> > and an interface remove of int foo(void), thus triggering both #5 and #6.
> > But in that case "changed" need not be mentioned in #4 either. So, because
> > "changed" is mentioned in #4, it also needs to be explicitly mentioned
> > in #6.
>
> Ah, ok.  Yes, you're right.  Feel free to commit a patch to
> s/removed/&  or changed/  in 6.

I've pushed the attached patch...

Cheers,
Peter

2010-05-05  Peter Rosin  <address@hidden>

        Clarify versioning algorithm documentation.
        * doc/libtool.texi (Updating version info): Be explicit
        about setting age to zero on interface change.
        Reported by Jef Driesen <address@hidden>


--
They are in the crowd with the answer before the question.
> Why do you dislike Jeopardy?

clarify-version-alg.patch
Description: Text document