Re: PED_MICRO_VERSION, PED_INTERFACE_AGE, PED_BINARY_AGE in configure.in

[Otavio Salvador]

Szakacsits Szabolcs <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, K.G. wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:30:32 +0100 (MET), Szakacsits Szabolcs 
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > I think 1.6.25 is OK since the codebase is the same and won't matter
>> > > for bug reporting.
>> > 
>> > Two 1.6.25 releases are highly bad. The only right way is to bump up the
>> > version, document the change so people can know what's going on and act
>> > accordingly.
>>
>> The problem is that 1.6.25 has a soname greater than that
>> of 1.6.24, so if we release 1.6.26 with the same as that
>> of 1.6.24 then 1.6.27 with a one greater than both 1.6.24,
>> 1.6.25 and 1.6.26 I doubt the situation will be better than
>> what we wanted to do? 
>
> I see. Then I think it's better not to release 1.6.25.1 (or 1.6.26 or a
> second 1.6.25). Soname is greater, big deal. It happens almost everyday ;)

Isn't so easy.

For example,  for Debian, it mean rebuild all installer using new
partman-base, partitioner and partconf binaries. Otherwise, we could
just rebuild the image and then all system would be upgraded.

It'll also need a qparted and gparted uploads 'cause of ABI
change. It'll cause a new migration need for testing and other issues.

So, please, does't simplify /so much/ it.

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: address@hidden      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."