On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 2012-11-09 18:54, Mikko Levonmaa wrote: > >>Right, so if the first api version is 0 then it make sense, sort of, >>matter of preference I guess. So, the original patch was wrong, however >>the new suggestion was actually geared towards the future and the next >>release(s), so if I'm not mistaken that needs to be done through the >>-version-info and for the time being the api version would be defined >>to 0. > > The next API begins when symbols are added or ABIs modified; so if > wayland 1.1 and 1.2 and 2.0 (serving as examples) all add symbols, 2.0 > would have API 3. > So, emphasizing again, package number often does not relate to the API > number.
Yes, it is clear that the api version should not follow the package version. What I was actually trying to propose in my previous mail is that even when the current api version is 0 we could already have the mechanics in place to increment the api version when the time comes, or is that automatically handled? If it is not, then we need to set the version info (current, revision and age) eventually. So the patch would be like .... -version-info @WAYLAND_API_CUR@:@WAYLAND_API_REV@:@WAYLAND_API_AGE@ and currently all of those values would be zero. The rational on my side for the original, albeit flawed suggestion, was that libtools docs suggest to update the version information only immediately before a public release. And as the version info had been 0 since the beginning I myself found that a bit confusing. Cheers, Mikko _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
