2000.05.23 15:28 "Re: SONAME=libtiff.so", by Thomas Anders
On May 23, 9:24, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
There is no compelling reason that version numbers of some sort are not included in libtiff; however, we have tried to avoid messing too much with the dso generation. If we rework libtiff to use autoconf we will also likely switch to use automake, and libtool. I imagine we would then use the normal libtool .so numbering scheme (not directly related to release numbers like 3.5.5 for reasons clarified in the libtool documentation).
The normal libtool numbering scheme requires to specify "-version-info current[:revision[:age]]". Can we agree on the numbers already before officially switching to libtool?
Thomas Anders <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin, Germany