From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Jan 29 17:28:32 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA07969
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA07963
          for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:28:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.4/8.7.3) id RAA02796; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199701300127.RAA02796@vader.cs.berkeley.edu>
To: paulo@thor.dee.uc.pt
CC: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, paulo@isr.uc.pt
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970129193038.412A-100000@thor.dee.uc.pt> (message from Paulo Menezes on Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:36:29 +0000 (WET))
Subject: Re: Upgrade of Mesa
From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * I am once again porting the new version of Mesa to FreeBSD.
 * Now I have a question, in the previous version I have used  for  version
 * numbers of  the shared libraries the pre-previous + 1 rule.

There is a reason behind the library versions increasing, and why they
can never decrease between releases.  Please see the handbook (28.3 or
something).

 * But I think it makes little sense in using something in FreeBSD like
 * ....so.14.0 where the other systems use .so.2.1 for the same version.

It's not like we can share libraries and binaries with other systems
anyway. :)  Just because other systems are being sloppy with shared
library numbering doesn't mean we should do the same.

 * What do you recomend, using the release number for these or ignore it and
 * add a symlink like "ln -s ***.so.2.1 ***.so.14.0"?

That won't do any good. :(

Satoshi