Subject: Re: Using binary packages on different NetBSD versions.
To: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
From: David Maxwell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/10/2000 14:29:26
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 04:19:56PM +0000, David Brownlee wrote:
> I have a slight preference to keeping the current separation, as
> it allows people to know what has already been recompiled for
> 1.4.1 and what is still 1.4 (and an obvious candidate for
> recompiling), but I'd have no strong objections to moving to
> 1.3.x and 1.4.x - what do other people think?
There's a problem either way. Dan's comment about static libs and bug fixes
for running 1.4.y pkg on 1.4.z where y<z, or warning messages for shared
libs when y>z.
If warnings are tolerable, then to me it would make sense to keep the 1.4.x
names, but when a 1.4.1 package is generated, deprecate the 1.4 one.
If we don't want to force warnings about "lib minor version number >= X
expected", then we have to keep full sets, as far as I can tell.
David Maxwell, email@example.comfirstname.lastname@example.org -->
(About an Amiga rendering landscapes) It's not thinking, it's being artistic!
- Jamie Woods