From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] numactl/Makefile - Generalize Makefile .so Version
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:10:54 +0200
Message-ID: <20090428171054.GO27382@one.firstfloor.org>
References: <20090428163621.24945.95516.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090428163702.24945.41315.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090428164616.GN27382@one.firstfloor.org> <1240938117.6998.85.camel@lts-notebook>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-numa-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1240938117.6998.85.camel@lts-notebook>
Sender: linux-numa-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-numa.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>, Kornilios Kourtis <kkourt@cslab.ece.ntua.gr>, Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>, linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, eric.whitney@hp.com

> 
> I do wonder, tho', why we don't/didn't bump the library version when we
> added the v2 API.  One can't tell from looking at the libnuma.so.1
> whether it supports the new APIs or not.  [I know.  objdump will tell

rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libnuma.so.1 ?

> me.] Given that the v2 lib still supports the v1 APIs and we install the
> libnuma.so sym link, seems it would be nice to have the library version
> match the API version.

That would have broken the compatibility to old programs. And it's
not needed.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.