[Xcb] [ANNOUNCE] xcb-util 0.3.9

Arnaud Fontaine arnau at debian.org
Sun Jun 3 18:54:58 PDT 2012


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.

Arnaud Fontaine

More information about the Xcb mailing list