[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 16 Oct 2001, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> should it not look a little more like:
>
> liballegro.so.3.9.39
> liballegro.so.4.0.0
> liballegro.so.4.0.1
> etc...
>
> where:
> liballegro.so -> link to newest major ver (liballegro.so.3/4)
> liballegro.so.3 -> link to newest release in the 3.*
> liballegro.so.4 -> link to newest stable release in the 4.*
That's a little misleading since "3.*" only means 3.9.40+. The reason
I chose the system I proposed is that we are (I hope) going to use
Linux-style versioning, and that 4.2.x would most likely not be binary
compatible with 4.0.x.
The top part is the same as what I was thinking. So, more explicitly:
liballegro.so -> newest version (liballegro.so.39/40/41/42)
liballegro.so.39 -> liballegro.so.3.9.40 (and above, if any)
liballegro.so.40 -> newest in 4.0 series (liballegro.so.4.0.x)
liballegro.so.42 -> newest in 4.2 series (liballegro.so.4.2.x)
etc.