[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ok, i screwed up

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:19:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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.

The binary package should still be called libofx0c102, not libofx0.  libofx0
would be fine as a source package name, but there's no reason to
gratuitously change the name of the binary package.  (Even though it's
probably rare to find someone who still has a testing/unstable version of
gnucash or grisbi on their system that's over 2 years old.)

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: