Re: Where we left versioning modules (accurate summary?).

[Rob Browning]

"Lars J. Aas" <address@hidden> writes:

> Wouldn't you want to ask for a revision too?

Given the libtool (and unix) shared library model, perhaps not.  If
you did that, you'd be allowing more flexibility from the dynamic
interface than you can have from the normal ldso interface.  Normally
an executable just gets the newest library with an interface number
(major) that satisfies it's link information.  I tend to think that
the dynamic interface should behave symmetrically.

I guess if the revision were allowed and just specified a minimum,
that might be OK, but I tend to feel that the right way to handle this
(and a bunch of other problems) is just to make sure that every shared
lib (that needs it) has a way to ask it for its CURRENT REVISION AGE
numbers so that apps can make the relevant decisions in whatever way
needed.

Thanks

-- 
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930