Re: XForms: autoconf/automake patch

From: Angus Leeming (angus.leeming@btopenworld.com)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 08:26:06 EDT

  • Next message: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes: "Re: XForms: autoconf/automake patch"

    # To subscribers of the xforms list from Angus Leeming <angus.leeming@btopenworld.com> :

    On Thursday 24 April 2003 11:10 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
    > Angus Leeming <angus.leeming@btopenworld.com> writes:
    > | # To subscribers of the xforms list from Angus Leeming
    > | <angus.leeming@btopenworld.com> :
    > |
    > | On Thursday 24 April 2003 9:56 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
    > | > Angus> Thanks. Ideally I think that we should generate the version
    > | > Angus> info in forms.h from whatever info is in configure.ac. Is that
    > | > Angus> possible?
    > | > You should first define the version number in a way that is compatible
    > | > with forms.h. 1.1cvs does not cut it. What about using numbers
    > | > starting from 1.0.90 like xfree (or 1.0.50 if you expect lots of
    > | > prereleases) for prereleases of 1.1.0? Then it should be easy to
    > | > generate AAA.h from a AAA.h.in at configure time.
    > |
    > | Aieeeee! Don't you hate numbering schemes!
    > |
    > | I think we should be able to differentiate between "stable" and
    > | "development" branches of the cvs repository. Perhaps we should use
    > | FL_REVISION to flag this? Odd numbers: development. Even numbers: stable.
    > |
    > | #define FL_VERSION 1
    > | #define FL_REVISION 2
    > | #define FL_FIXLEVEL 3
    > |
    > | Bug fix 3 of the stable xforms 1.2 release.
    > |
    > | #define FL_VERSION 1
    > | #define FL_REVISION 1
    > | #define FL_FIXLEVEL 3
    >
    > Are you using libtool to build the lib?
    > If so you must read about libtool's numbering scheme.
    >
    > info libtool

    I have read it. This is _nothing_ to do with the versioning scheme we are
    talking about. See "The Autobook, 11.4 Library Versioning"
    http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_91.html

    I have set -version-info 1.0.0, meaning that I haven't really thought about
    this too much. Reading the docs, I guess that 1.1.1 would be better, meaning
    that:
    * This is a new revision of the current interface.
    * This release is backwards compatible with the previous release.

    Do you agree with this reading?

    Angus

    _________________________________________________
    To unsubscribe, send the message "unsubscribe" to
    xforms-request@bob.usuhs.mil or see
    http://bob.usuhs.mil/mailserv/xforms.html
    XForms Home Page: http://world.std.com/~xforms
    List Archive: http://bob.usuhs.mil/mailserv/list-archives/
    Development: http://savannah.nongnu.org/files/?group=xforms



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 07:21:56 EDT