On 08/14/2010 11:14 PM, Phil Dibowitz wrote: > On 08/14/2010 08:50 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> No, that's not correct; it should be "1" given the current libconcord.so >> settings. If you run ldd on the concordance application, you'll see that >> it searches for "libconcord.so.1" (the soname), which is then symlinked >> to "libconcord.so.1.1.0" (the current implementation of that soname). >> The Python bindings should be searching for the soname too just like the >> concordance application. >> >> However, since the ABI changed, this should really be "libconcord.so.2". >> Without that change, a concordance application built from the latest >> source will still be looking for libconcord.so.1, which could be >> satisfied by a libconcord built from either new or old sources (since >> they have the same soname and filenames), yet a libconcord built from >> old sources wouldn't work with the latest concordance application >> because of the missing functions. > > Yeah. The more I think about it, the more I think the libtool system makes > no sense. I'll change the -version-info from '2:0:1' to '2:0:0', I think > from now, only use the so version (the first digit).
Done. Look good? -- Phil Dibowitz p...@ipom.com Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ concordance-devel mailing list concordance-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
