From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx51.mymxserver.com ([85.199.173.110]:12967 "EHLO mx51.mymxserver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753237AbZI2LBM (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:01:12 -0400 From: Holger Schurig To: Tomas Winkler Subject: Re: Firmware versioning best practices Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:01:04 +0200 Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-wireless References: <43e72e890909281517k23abaf8dvd3e84837ce307429@mail.gmail.com> <200909290859.25075.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <1ba2fa240909290345k776826a6jc692d9d8dfe7577@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1ba2fa240909290345k776826a6jc692d9d8dfe7577@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <200909291301.04156.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Don't put the version into the filename. This is not a common > > practice for Linux / BSD / whatever systems. Usually you have > > a "kmail" file, not a kmail3.5, kmail4.0 and kmail4.2 file. > > I think in this context libyyy.so.x.y.z is better analogy. > firmware is not an executable What is the reasoning behind this > common practice? There's no version of the library in the file-name, but the version of the API. So if the API changes, and might break users of the API, you increase the filename. But you won't have a libc-2.3.6.so file. Instead you have a package "libc6_2.3.6.ds1-13etch9_i386.deb" which contains the file libc.so.6. -- http://www.holgerschurig.de