Should all builtin DLLs have version information?

[Paul Vriens]

Hi,

the subject says it all. If yes, I will start adding some for the ones
visible in Process Explorer when running some of 'my' test-apps.

Paul.

[Detlef Riekenberg]

Paul Vriens wrote:
> the subject says it all. If yes, I will start adding some for the ones

IMHO that's a good idea.

[Paul Vriens]

On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 19:22, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
> Paul Vriens wrote:
> > the subject says it all. If yes, I will start adding some for the ones
>
> IMHO that's a good idea.

I have added this one as a TODO on my list. What version-number should
we give our DLLs. Some of them have already version 10.xxx, probably to
get rid of any problem in the nearby future, for programs that check the
version.

Should we give our DLLs the highest version currently available on all
of the windows-versions (95 .... W2K3)? This will mean that someone (me
?) has to go over them from time to time to check whether this has
changed. I do think (apart from the extra work) that it look better than
10.xxx.

Maybe we should add some comments in the version resource files like:

/* Windows-version    Date Checked    Version
 * 
 * 95
 * 98
 * WinXP              08/21/05        5.1.2600.2180
 * Win2K
 * Win2K3
/*

Any ideas, suggestions ?

Paul.