Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:11:47 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Subject: Re: Proposal on shared libs version values. Message-ID: <3A89A313.4E5B6865@newsguy.com> References: <200102131717.f1DHHNW39519@harmony.village.org> <200102131941.f1DJffU66659@mobile.wemm.org> <20010213130926.A79651@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.<date> to stand for a development > version of libc.so.5 better than the libc.so.500 scheme. > libc.so.5.<date> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A89A313.4E5B6865>