XFree 4.2.1 + fontconfig-2

[Nicholas Wourms]

--- Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 09:32:27 +0200, Alexander Gottwald wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > 
> > > How about a seperate package call X11-compat for this?  Just
> seems
> > > like a waste of space for people who don't care.
> > 
> > Good idea
> > 
> > > library name used on *nix: libXfoo.0.0.so
> > 
> > actually libXfoo.so.0.0, everything else will also break the
> library 
> > versioning.
> > > *for Cygwin:
> > > ============
> > > 
> > > runtime name:
> > > -------------
> > > 
> > > "cyg" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + <minor> + "." +
> "dll"
> > > [i.e. cygXfoo.0.0.dll]
> > 
> > Any minor version bump will break older clients. They will
> request
> > cygXfoo.0.0.dll but cygXfoo.0.1.dll is installed and is
> sufficient.
> > 
> > if we name it only cygXfoo.0.dll, can the cygwin installer make
> sure
> > that at least package foo-x.y-1 is installed and not only
> foo-x.y-0
> > for all packages requiring the new version?
> 
> I think in this instance that windows doesn't help us much. I think
> it should be fine if we had say libXfoo.0.dll installed (which was
> really v0.0), but then we released Xfoo-0.1.tar.gz which installed
> another libXfoo.0.dll (which is now v0.1). I.E We only ever report
> the
> major version number and forget about the minor one, as in the case
> of the minor number we are always backwards compatible.

Of course, you're correct.  I was worried they might make a binary
incompatible minor release.  However, if this is not the case, then
we should be in good shape :-).

Cheers,
Nicholas

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com