Hi, On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:03:40PM +0100, Jens Vollinga wrote:
- Log ----------------------------------------------------------------- commit 7e145335f2d185c7e07044be5a758bb8f0f71e29 Author: Jens Vollinga <jensv@nikhef.nl> Date: Wed Feb 25 13:07:18 2009 +0100
Preparing for release.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of changes: NEWS | 4 ++++
--- a/NEWS +++ b/NEWS @@ -1,5 +1,9 @@ This file records noteworthy changes. +1.5.1 (25 February 2009) +* Fixed compiling problems with GNU g++ 3.4. +* Fixed broken RTTI on woe32. + Oh, what a nice joke! @@ -14,7 +14,9 @@ dnl When making releases, do dnl 1. Increment ginac_lt_revision dnl 2. If any interfaces have been added, removed, or changed since the last dnl release, increment ginac_lt_current and set ginac_lt_revision to 0. -dnl 3. If any interfaces have been removed since the last release, set +dnl 3. If any interfaces have been added since the last release, increment +dnl ginac_lt_age. +dnl 4. If any interfaces have been removed since the last release, set dnl ginac_lt_age to 0. dnl So far so good... @@ -22,8 +24,8 @@ dnl systems, the numbering is consecutive. It only guarantees that it is dnl increasing. This doesn't matter, though: there is not incurred cost dnl for numbers that are omitted, except for shrinking the available space dnl of leftover numbers. Not something we need to worry about yet. ;-) -m4_define([ginac_lt_current], [0]) -m4_define([ginac_lt_age], [0]) +m4_define([ginac_lt_current], [1]) +m4_define([ginac_lt_age], [1]) m4_define([ginac_lt_revision], [0]) This looks incorrect. We did not add or removed any interfaces, we fixed existing ones. So we should simply increment ginac_lt_revision, and that's it. Best regards, Alexei