The last build is very old so maybe I'm outdated, but here goes. The new ifconfig needs the new libsocket.so.2 but shouldn't it be called libsocket.so.3 ? Or maybe I misunderstand what the extension number is used for.
Hi Mario: Nope. In this case, libsocket is fully backwards compatible with io-net, so there was no need to bump up the number. It's got additional functionality, but doesn't break anything already existing. Robert. P.S. I'll be posting a new milestone build today some time. -----Original Message----- From: Mario Charest [mailto:mcharest@zinformatic.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:00 PM To: technology-networking Subject: libsocket.so.2 The last build is very old so maybe I'm outdated, but here goes. The new ifconfig needs the new libsocket.so.2 but shouldn't it be called libsocket.so.3 ? Or maybe I misunderstand what the extension number is used for. _______________________________________________ Technology http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post7559
I think that adding new features would typically mean incrementing the minor number but we don't seem to have those... libsocket.so.2.1 -seanb On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:02:54PM -0400, Robert Craig wrote: > Hi Mario: > Nope. In this case, libsocket is fully backwards compatible with > io-net, so there was no need to bump up the number. It's got additional > functionality, but doesn't break anything already existing. > > Robert. > > P.S. I'll be posting a new milestone build today some time. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mario Charest [mailto:mcharest@zinformatic.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:00 PM > To: technology-networking > Subject: libsocket.so.2 > > The last build is very old so maybe I'm outdated, but here goes. > > The new ifconfig needs the new libsocket.so.2 but shouldn't it be called > libsocket.so.3 ? Or maybe I misunderstand what the extension number is used > for. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Technology > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post7559 > > _______________________________________________ > Technology > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post7561
> > I think that adding new features would typically mean incrementing > the minor number but we don't seem to have those... I find it confusing because it's easy to assume the version number is unique identifier ;-) > > libsocket.so.2.1 > > -seanb > > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:02:54PM -0400, Robert Craig wrote: > > Hi Mario: > > Nope. In this case, libsocket is fully backwards compatible with > > io-net, so there was no need to bump up the number. It's got additional > > functionality, but doesn't break anything already existing. > > > > Robert. > > > > P.S. I'll be posting a new milestone build today some time. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mario Charest [mailto:mcharest@zinformatic.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:00 PM > > To: technology-networking > > Subject: libsocket.so.2 > > > > The last build is very old so maybe I'm outdated, but here goes. > > > > The new ifconfig needs the new libsocket.so.2 but shouldn't it be called > > libsocket.so.3 ? Or maybe I misunderstand what the extension number is used > > > for. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Technology > > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post7559 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Technology > > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post7561
