* Steve Langasek (vorlon@netexpress.net) wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library > > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct... > > However, consider: > > - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib > - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author > - There will never be a successor to libImlib.so.1 which uses libImlib.so.2 > as its soname I agree with your points but why couldn't they have an libImlib.so.2? besides the fact that it would be horribly confusing... > > So what difference does it make if the library is called libImlib2.so.1 versus > libImlib.so.2? None really, except that one unnecessarily includes a number > in the library /name/, and the other increments the library /version/. Which > makes one much less cumbersome than the other. My understanding was that you incremented a major version when you made binary incompatible changes to a library (remove a symbol, etc)... Imlib 2 is a completely new library, which doesn't really share a code ancestery with Imlib... it was a complete rewrite. I agree it is somewhat unfortunately named, but i think the right thing was done with respect to library versioning. > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > Eric Dorland dorland@lords.com ICQ: #61138586 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
Attachment:
pgpdB7mma85zl.pgp
Description: PGP signature