libXfont version inconsistency ?

[Daniel Stone]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:49:19PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Daniel Stone <daniel at freedesktop.org> schrieb:
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:10:52PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > * Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <arekm at pld-linux.org> schrieb:
> > > > Think what will happen when someone does some code rework without 
> > > > breaking ABI and will give version 2.0 to libXfont ... 
> > > 
> > > He simply shouldn't. What should legitimate such an huge version 
> > > jump if the ABI is untouched ? On an major jump, people expect
> > > something totally new, which is incompatible with the previous 
> > > version (maybe even on source level).
> > 
> > So you're saying that we should be on X17, not X11R7?
> 
> No. AFAIK X11 refers to the protocol and API specification(s),
> R7(.x|) is the distribution. You dont change it if each time
> we've got some updated package.
> 
> IMHO, X11R7 is just an distribution.

My point is that we've made enormous changes to the source code while
maintaining protocol compatibility on the wire, and API/ABI
compatibility for things like Xlib.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20060727/fe6f0e59/attachment.pgp>