[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Libcdio-devel] libcdio-0.91 - libiso9660 version

From: Rocky Bernstein
Subject: Re: [Libcdio-devel] libcdio-0.91 - libiso9660 version
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:07:33 -0500

You are correct. I'll put out libcdio 0.92 sometime today.

On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Chris Clayton <address@hidden>wrote:

> Hi,
> I've noticed that the version of libiso9660 produced by building
> libcdio-0.91 is less than the version produced by
> building libcdio-0.83. Whilst I can't claim to fully understand the
> libtool versioning scheme, this does seem odd.
> Installing the rpm I have built fails because other applications depend on
>  Consequently, I looked at
> the related guidance notes in lib/iso9660/ (and the libtool
> info page) and am a bit puzzled about the values
> I see in the libiso9660_la_{CURRENT,REVISION,AGE} variables.
> In v0.83 the values are CURRENT = 8, REVISION = 0 and AGE= 0. In v0.91
> CURRENT and REVISION are unchanged, but AGE has
> been incremented to 1. According to the notes, the only reason to
> increment AGE is that interfaces have been added since
> the last public release - i.e. the condition in note 5 is true. If note 5
> is true, then note 4 must also have been true,
> which means that CURRENT should now have the value 9.
> Of course, I'm assuming here that one works through notes 3 to 6 in order,
> amending the variables according to the truth
> of the condition. That may be an incorrect assumption, but, having read
> the notes in the info page, I can't see how the
> dynamic linker could work if any other method of arriving at the version
> numbering was used.
> I'm not subscribed, so please cc me on any reply.
> Thanks
> Chris

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]