2010/9/15 Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]>
> Does anyone know if and how SOVERSION is managed in Boost?
> Perhaps adopting well tested scheme would be easiest.
>
I now maintain the Boost package for Fedora/RedHat... so, I do know how it
is managed for that distribution :)
Until last year, we (at Fedora/RedHat) increased the soversion each time we
thought the ABI was broken. So, for instance, version 1.37 of Boost
corresponded to soversion 4 and Boost-1.39 corresponded to soversion 5.
We had a look at how Debian did it (see, for instance, the following
discussions:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/2008-November/001611.html),
and eventually decided to follow them (Debian).
There have been some discussions on the Boost developer mailing list as
well:
* Naming and soversion:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2008/04/18704.php
* Start of the debate on soname/soversion convention in Boost:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-cmake/2009/10/0686.php
* Boost-CMake RFC for soversion:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-cmake/2009/10/0712.php and
http://sodium.resophonic.com/boost-cmake/current-docs/build_configuration.html#build-soversioned
Hence, since last year, the soversion now matches the Boost version. For
instance, the soversion of Boost 1.44.0 is xxx.so.1.44.0
But I'd be perfectly happy with the soname being just xxx.so.major.minor
D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Soci-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
