Re: qthreads / guile-readline version suggestion

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

   From: Rob Browning <address@hidden>
   Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 16:34:09 -0600

   I like it.  I'll need to set the version of a few libs to at least 9
   since I've been using 9 in Debian for 1.4.X, but I'll go ahead and set
   the age to at least 1.  Is there any reason we might need more than
   one level of "age" headroom you can think of?

let's start w/ 1 and see how it pans out.

   (As an alternative to consider, couldn't we also just release a new
    version of 1.6.X with libs that have high enough AGEs to cover the
    older 1.4.X libs?  Which would be better?)

sounds feasible.  if incrementing both REVISION and AGE is ok, then
there is no real need to set AGE to 1 at this time.  to be conservative,
i assumed this was not ok.  if it proves to be ok, we can definitely use
that approach later.

   Presuming for the moment that an AGE of 1 is enough headroom, how
   about these as candidate versions for everything for the release (BTW,
   I'm not stuck on "15", I just chose it at random -- anything >= 11
   would probably be fine too...)

     LIBQTHREADS_INTERFACE_CURRENT=15
     LIBQTHREADS_INTERFACE_REVISION=0
     LIBQTHREADS_INTERFACE_AGE=1

     LIBGUILE_INTERFACE_CURRENT=15
     LIBGUILE_INTERFACE_REVISION=0
     LIBGUILE_INTERFACE_AGE=1

fine by me.

     LIBGUILE_SRFI_SRFI_4_INTERFACE_CURRENT=1
     LIBGUILE_SRFI_SRFI_4_INTERFACE_REVISION=0
     LIBGUILE_SRFI_SRFI_4_INTERFACE_AGE=1

     LIBGUILE_SRFI_SRFI_13_14_INTERFACE_CURRENT=1
     LIBGUILE_SRFI_SRFI_13_14_INTERFACE_REVISION=0
     LIBGUILE_SRFI_SRFI_13_14_INTERFACE_AGE=0

shouldn't srfi-4 AGE be 0?  typo?

     LIBGUILEREADLINE_INTERFACE_CURRENT=15
     LIBGUILEREADLINE_INTERFACE_REVISION=0
     LIBGUILEREADLINE_INTERFACE_AGE=1

fine by me.

thi