Re: Library versioning

2008-01-30 Thread Sebastian Harl
Hi David, On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:14:13PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > This is due to the fact that in Makefile.am upstream (CCed) has set: > > libvista_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 2:2:0 > > As already discussed in the thread at [1], the numbers get reversed in the > file name, so that 2:2:0

Re: Library versioning

2008-01-30 Thread Cyril Brulebois
On 30/01/2008, David Paleino wrote: > I'm packaging a software for the Debian-Med group (CCed), and found > that, even if the library is at version 2.2.1, the compilation makes a > libfoo.so.2.0.2 [1]. > Is there any solution to this? If not, is it that important that the > filename has the same v

Re: Library versioning

2008-01-30 Thread David Paleino
Il giorno Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:38:42 +0100 Sebastian Harl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto: > Hi David, Hi Sebastian, > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:14:13PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > > > Is there any solution to this? If not, is it that important that the > > filename has the same version number