[ghemical-devel] Ghemical-2.95 is now released

[Tommi Hassinen]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Michael Banck wrote:

> That is sensiible I think, but then the parameter directory should maybe
> rather be versioned according to the SONAME and not LIBVERSION (which is
> really PACKAGE_VERSION right now), I think.  Or rather, CURRENT.  I
> actually realized yesterday that the current Debian libghemical-data
> package is not versioned like the library itself, so I will rename it to
> libghemical2-data or something.

Hello,

I just made new lib-packages 2.96 and 0.96 ; there I use versioninfo 3:0:0 
for libghemical and 1:0:0 for liboglappth ; I really wasn't familiar with 
libtool versioninfo rules (current:revision:age) until now.

I still kept the data directory LIBVERSION-based, not SONAME based ; I 
still think this is better even though you probably need to keep the 
library and data packages one-to-one related.  :(  I'm afraid using 
SONAME would confuse ordinary users to much...

> By the way, mopac7 introduced the same problem, I already uploaded it to
> Debian though, but it did not arrive in the archive yet.

I looked the mopac numbers but those looked OK to me ; please tell me more 
detailed if there are problems (mopac has 1:13:0 where "revision" has 
increased steadily release by release).

Thanks for your advice,

 	Tommi