On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 21:49 -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > I had old fontconfig-2.2.96 on a NetBSD and Linux system which provided: > > libfontconfig.so.1.0.4 > > And now a new fontconfig-2.3.2 also provides same version: > libfontconfig.so.1.0.4 > > I see this is defined with configure > > LT_CURRENT=1 > LT_REVISION=4 > AC_SUBST(LT_CURRENT) > AC_SUBST(LT_REVISION) > LT_AGE=0 > > > Also I see that changelog entry for April 27 says: > "Bump so revision for 2.3.2". What does "so" mean? If that is for shared > object or the library, maybe the numbers above should have been adjusted. Yes, they should have been, but the commit to configure.in doesn't appear to have made it into CVS, nor is it here on my disk. > Anyways, I am curious.... is it correct for the library versioning to not > change? Yes, it's actually fine as the ABI has not changed since 2.2. However, I intended to bump the revision number so that a linux system would have libfontconfig.so.1.0.5 I am a bit concerned about the missing changes in CVS though... -keith
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fontconfig mailing list fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
