pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: [rfc, patch] new PCP host specification syntax]

To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [rfc, patch] new PCP host specification syntax]
From: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:17:24 +1100
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <43222.192.168.3.1.1195084611.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <43222.192.168.3.1.1195084611.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> "nscott" == nscott  <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 nscott> Also, can someone outline what the procedure is in terms of
 nscott> libpcp version numbering and adding new API functions?

I was following the linux "backward compatibility" model - bump
version number if adding new functions. I don't particularly like this
as tt does cause problems when newer binaries are installed with old
pcp but it's more of in-your-face kind of failure then dying with
unresolved symbols at runtime.

We're at libcpcp.so.3. We could go to .so.4 or we could become fancy
and start doing stuff like .so.3.1. 

I'm not sure how it's going to play with macosx convention of
libpcp.N.dynlib - they may be upset about too many dots.

max

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>