Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:19:24 -0800 (PST) From: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi Asami) To: thomas@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de Cc: thomas@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/ImageMagick/pkg PLIST Message-ID: <199612100619.WAA01649@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199612091058.LAA06541@ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de> (message from Thomas Gellekum on Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:58:27 %2B0100 (MET))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* I think I'd like the version number of ImageMagick in there. It's * easier to remember to change the shlib version to 379.0 than try all * possible combinations of old and new libs and decide whether we want * 3.9 or 4.0. It's also less confusing for users who might use libMagick * for their own stuff. Or would you prefer libMagick378.so.1.0? Well, what's going to happen if you decide to fix a bug, resulting in an incompatibility, after the release? If you bump it to 379.0, that's going to be confusing as hell if ImageMagick is still 3.7.8. :) Trust me, I have been through before. Many attempts to somehow correlate the software's release version numbers and shlib versions have failed one way or another, and we have things like libjpeg.so.7.0 for jpeg-6a, libm3.so.4.0 for m3-3.3.6, etc. (The latter is not too bad, of course, but we'd be at libm3.so.337.0 now if we weren't careful.) The only way that halfway worked is to have the version number in the "basename" part, as your last sentence above. But that will force users to update ImageMagick even when it is not necessary (not to mention change the Makefiles). By the way, you shouldn't have to test all possible combinations, if the port comes with a reasonable change log file. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612100619.WAA01649>