"Adam Majer" <email@example.com> cum veritate scripsit:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 02:39:23PM -0500, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> > Perhaps I missed something along the way, but why has the libusb
> > package moved from the nominally-standard libusb0 naming to this
> > libusb-0.1-4 name? This would seem to be in violation of policy
> > section 11.3.
> Probably because upstream doesn't follow proper versioning.
> I maintain stuff that is not binary compatible b/w minor
> releases like 1.4 -> 1.5.
That's probably a real problem.
I don't know what the guy tries to mean here, but it is probably
a library under the name of "libusb-0.1"
With a soversion of 4
firstname.lastname@example.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
- From: Michael Alan Dorman <email@example.com>
- Re: libusb...
- From: "Adam Majer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>