Re: at-spi versioning

[Sander Vesik <sander_traveling yahoo co uk>]

 --- Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com> wrote: > 
> > Forcing soname numbers to make them artificially match some external
> > expectation of what they should be is almost always wrong.
> > 
> > Going backwards on soname versions is *alway* wrong.
> > 
> > If you released tarballs of ati-spi that had a major of 1, and have
> > since broken binary compatibility, you _must_ use a major of at
> > least 2 now.
> 
> We didn't break bincompat, but somehow a .so.1 got released *and*
> bundled with RH8.0.
> 

Erm - from the POV of RH8.0 and in fact anybody trying to run binaries compiled
elsewhere on RH8.0, there is in fact a bin-compat break. Dependning on what went
into RH 9.0 there might be a bincompat ( a rather odd one, at that) break between
the two aswell. 

I'm not 100% sure how to best fix it, but going to so.2 might be the way. 
Ultimately at-spi is still a esktop library, I believe so there are no 
bincompat guarantees to be broken, except for inbetween the various point 
releases in a stable branch.

> 
> - Bill
>

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer