On Sunday 2012-07-01 14:11, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: >> >> >> >> Correct -- if you had stayed with "-version-info", which you did not. >> > >> >So if it's reverted back (second part of your patch), the the first part >> >is to be skipped. >> >> Since you already have made a release (ipset-6.13) emitting an .so.3 >> file, I don't think you should go back to .so.2. Hence I am using 3:0:0. > >What I meant is to keep LIBVERSION = 3:0:1, because that's right from >backward compatibility view, and restore back -version-info. What part was unclear? * 6.13 uses -version-number 3:0:1 * that causes production of .so.3 * it's set in stone * next incompatible change requires use of .so.4 * going back to .so.2 not a good idea * humans are prone to errors and would reuse .so.3 in error * therefore the patch makes a clean restart, using -version-info 3:0:0, to continue using .so.3 starting from ipset-6.13 until the next *real* incompatible change. (If you care about the uninteresting third digit, -version-info 3:1:0 would be wanted.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
