On Sun, 1 Jul 2012, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > 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 Yes ,right. [...] > * 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. What is still unclear for me, why a clean restart is required. Looking into "libtool", as I see, "-version-number 3:0:1" and "-version-info 3:0:1" produces the same result. Why should the support of the previous interface be excluded? > (If you care about the uninteresting third digit, > -version-info 3:1:0 would be wanted.) Now, you have confused me completely. -version-info 3:1:0 is converted directly into current, revision and age, in this order. Best regards, Jozsef - E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlecsik.jozsef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary -- 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
