[Xcb] [ANNOUNCE] xcb-util 0.3.9

Julien Cristau jcristau at debian.org
Mon Jun 4 13:34:36 PDT 2012

On Sat, Jun  2, 2012 at 16:41:02 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:

> 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.
How are the xcb_atom_get_predefined/xcb_atom_get_name_predefined
removals not binary incompatible??


More information about the Xcb mailing list