> 
> 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 The last build is very old so maybe I'm outdated, but here goes.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