Received: from [207.176.88.85] by phillip.cerious.com (NTMail 3.03.0017/7.aaxh) with ESMTP id pcrews for <pcrews@cerious.com>; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:34:22 -0400
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA22700;
	Tue, 23 May 2000 11:56:14 -0400
Received: by gate7.olympiakos.com (bulk_mailer v1.9); Tue, 23 May 2000 11:56:01 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22641
	for tiff-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:56:01 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: gate7.olympiakos.com: majordom set sender to owner-tiff@olympiakos.com using -f
Received: from ns.srz-berlin.de (ns.srz-berlin.de [212.5.11.1])
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22638
	for <tiff@olympiakos.com>; Tue, 23 May 2000 11:55:58 -0400
Received: from SunFrame1 (gw.srz-berlin.de [212.5.11.2])
	by ns.srz-berlin.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA23932;
	Tue, 23 May 2000 17:55:52 +0200
Message-ID: <392AAA08.381F@srz-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:55:52 +0200
From: Helge Blischke <H.Blischke@srz-berlin.de>
Organization: SRZ BERLIN
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: anders@hmi.de
CC: TIFF Mailing List <tiff@olympiakos.com>
Subject: Re: SONAME=libtiff.so
References: <1000523090312.ZM28695@dsapp3.hmi.de>  <392A7BF9.2D7A@srz-berlin.de> 
		<392A9495.C2A1CDCD@home.com> <1000523172852.ZM4220@dsapp3.hmi.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tiff@olympiakos.com

Thomas Anders wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
> 
Never mind.

Helge
-- 
H.Blischke@srz-berlin.de
H.Blischke@srz-berlin.com
H.Blischke@acm.org
