 |
 |
The pull request that you submitted would indeed solve the immediate problem. The issue we had was that it wouldn't solve the essential problem. There was an edge case that caused certain combinations of "required" vs "acceptable" versions to fail the check. I really want to thank you for bringing up this issue and without your observation we would have never caught it. The solution was far more complicated, unfortunately, but it should provide a more consistent version checking scenario (well, I hope this is the end of it). Why is this complicated? Version checking is a compendium of not only what version is required but of what version are asking for the requirement. The checking logic is trying to ensure that the version of a shared library does not exceed its own version. So, not only does a version check the "static" version requirements it also ensures that the chain of plugins being loaded are actually compatible with each other based on each one of those requirements. Unfortunately, the checking logic was faulty when it came down to the minor version. It was far too restrictive. The patch takes into account what the major version requirements were (it did not do that). I know this is more information that you wanted but I wanted to point out that realistic version checking is far more complicated than what one would expect. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/1328#issuecomment-729630799 ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1