Re: libusb...
"Adam Majer" <adamm@galacticasoftware.com> cum veritate scripsit:
> True but what is wrong with having libusb.so.1.4? I'm not familiar
> with that library, but let's say you have releases 1.4 and 1.5
> which are incompatable with themselves [and likewise for other minor
> releases]. Then why not just make it libusb.so.1.4 and libusb.so.1.5?
There is nothing wrong with it, just that it is not congruent with
libtool manual. And most packages which do it that way tend to
ignore binary compatibility.
Major/minor revisions in packages do not really reflect
major/minor revisions in binary interface of libraries,
which people most often get wrong.
regards,
junichi
--
dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Reply to: