From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS autolearn=no version=3.2.5 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:09:22 +0200 From: Michael Shigorin To: ALT Linux Team development discussions Message-ID: <20101211170922.GO29865@osdn.org.ua> Mail-Followup-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions References: <778691292086582@web55.yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <778691292086582@web55.yandex.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: Re: [devel] leptonica versioning X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:02:39 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 07:56:22PM +0300, Bergman Andrey wrote: > The version number of the .so library is not supposed to > correspond to the release number. Вообще-то да. > Вопрос - что делать? Нумеровать библиотеку по пакету, или > пакет по библиотеке, или разводить шизофрению с двойной > нумерацией? libleptonica68-2.0.0 или как-то так плюс libleptonica-devel-2.0.0 из leptonica-2.0.0-alt*.src.rpm, насколько понимаю. -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/