Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 17:47:02 -0800 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: taob@io.org, ahill@interconnect.com.au, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The GIMP beta on 2.1.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <199511290147.RAA27633@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <1371.817584111@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> * > I wonder why I have 2.2 and not 2.1 (I'm running 2.1.0-RELEASE)? * * Because shared library revision numbers don't track OS revision numbers * (and never did, except occasionally by coincidence). Well, that's true but the real reason is: "libc's version number 2.1 was already used in 2.0.5R"! :) The thing about shlib version numbers is that we don't bump them if we don't have to. There are things (added functions, interface changes) that require either the minor or major number to be bumped. We synchronized everything to 2.0 when 2.0R came out, and some numbers were bumped further since. If you take a look at /usr/lib of a 2.1R system, you'll see a few 3.0's (no backward compatibility), some 2.1's (backward compatible with 2.0), one 2.2 (that's libc -- backward compatible with 2.1 and 2.0) and the rest are still 2.0's. How far we bump the major number (or where we start) is a matter of taste, there are examples where it seems like the number is directly related to the OS or underlying package's version (like XFree86...I think they use 6.0 to indicate release 6 of X11). (ok, this was not exactly a "ports" question...but I wanted everyone to know what this is about, this comes up in the ports' own shared libraries as well....) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511290147.RAA27633>