Subject: Re: Using binary packages on different NetBSD versions.
To: David Maxwell <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/10/2000 18:35:31
Changes on the -release branch are not supposed to modify ABIs -
so the version numbers of any libraries should not be bumped
(unless there is a showstopper bugfix), so we should be able
to get away with dropping the older packages.
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, David Maxwell wrote:
> 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