From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Feb 13 13:14:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF8137B4EC for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from newsguy.com (p02-dn03kiryunisiki.gunma.ocn.ne.jp [210.232.224.131]) by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN/) with ESMTP id GAA02350; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:14:27 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <3A89A313.4E5B6865@newsguy.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:11:47 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pt-BR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Peter Wemm Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. References: <200102131717.f1DHHNW39519@harmony.village.org> <200102131941.f1DJffU66659@mobile.wemm.org> <20010213130926.A79651@dragon.nuxi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG David O'Brien wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 11:41:41AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > When libc is built, we could link it with "-h libc.so.5-13-Feb-2001" > > Actually I think I like libc.so.5. to stand for a development > version of libc.so.5 better than the libc.so.500 scheme. > libc.so.5. gives a better matching of what the shared version > number would be when released. It also makes it very clear when the > incompatible change happened. (encoding of date left unspecified) > > Opinions? Keep the date in ISO format (yyyy-mm-dd), otherwise 5-14-Feb-2001 would get priority over 5-13-Mar-20001. (Unless I skipped this discussion too much, but the point still kind of stands.) -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org capo@a.crazy.bsdconspiracy.net "That's evil, Sir," Layson said admiringly. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message