Kevin Brown wrote:
> It wouldn't be a terribly bad idea to do that, but the main criteria
> for bumping the major version should be binary compatibility. If
> applications which link against libpq.so.2 reside on the system and
> libpq.so.2.3 has binary incompatibilities with libpq.so.2.2, then
> installing libpq.so.2.3 on the system will break all the binaries that
> use libpq.so.2. That's why it's important to bump the major version
> when there are binary incompatibilities: you can install libpq.so.3
> and all the while, applications that rely on libpq.so.2 will still run
> (because you can have both of those library versions installed on the
> system at the same time without conflict).
>
> > I usually bumped the minor at the beginning because this allows beta
> > testers to not have _extra_ versions of the library laying around, and
> > also because we make minor library changes often during beta, so it
> > isn't clear when to bump that number.
>
> I think it makes sense to change the minor number whenever there are
> code changes to the library that don't introduce binary
> incompatibilities. Whether you bump the minor version during a new
> release when there are no changes to the library itself is probably a
> matter of preference only. It doesn't really hurt anything and may
> make management of the version number easier.
If it is true that the linker only matches the major number, what value
is there in incrementing the minor number, as we have done in the past?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073