Re: ok, i screwed up

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

> IMHO, calling libofx0 the old library again is the wrong thing to do.
> The reason is explained in the changelog entry for libofx_0.6.2-6.
> A package compiled with the old (pre g++ 3.2) libofx0 library will
> not work with the "new" libofx0.

Yes; I did also make an upload under the name libofx that should
override the mistaken one and which has the old API.  But I'd rather
have that retired.

> I still think the best thing to do would be to keep the old library
> name unchanged. This is the kind of stability our users expect.
> The new library already gives you the opportunity to get rid of the
> ugly c102 suffix, with time, is that is what you are looking for.

Fortunately there are only two users of libofx and one of them is me;
if this were something used by many people used I would worry a lot
more.

Thomas