[Xcb] [ANNOUNCE] xcb-util 0.3.9
Arnaud Fontaine
arnau at debian.org
Sun Jun 3 18:54:58 PDT 2012
Hello,
Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu at freedesktop.org> writes:
> Why did "Do not rely anymore on gperf and m4 following removal of
> deprecated atoms." do this:
>
> -libxcb_util_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 0:0:0 -no-undefined
> +libxcb_util_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 1:0:0 -no-undefined
>
> I don't see this change requiring a major version bump which should
> only be done for binary compatibility changes. Yes, you removed the
> xcb_atom_get_predefined and xcb_atom_get_name_predefined functions,
> but not in a binary incompatible way, so you should not have bumped
> the major version which requires relinking every library and
> application that links against the library.
I don't really understand why it does not require a bump of "current"
number. Could you please elaborate? I followed that documentation[0] and
as I thought that some other libraries or program could have used these
functions, I bumped "current" version. It made sense at that time but I
may be wrong though...
> How do you want to fix this? Is this a flag day, and it won't happen
> again, or do you want to do a quick turn-around release of 0.3.10 and
> recommend that nobody ship 0.3.9?
If I would have to revert this change, I would prefer the first option.
Cheers,
--
Arnaud Fontaine
More information about the Xcb
mailing list