Hi Matthew,

On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:00 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> > And while we're at it, can we please drop the meaningless -1.2 suffix
> > from the library names (e.g. libedataserver-1.2.so)?  As far as I can
> > tell this is just an artifact from an age before the EDS sonames were
> > properly versioned.

        Cue, screaming ... please read:


        and reconsider ;-) be aware that it takes weeks to months to get that
change up-stream, and months to get a new version of OO.o out, and all
the while OO.o will ~silently fail to work with people's new 'clean'
renamed library e-d-s :-)

        AFAIR the name versioning was originally intended to ensure you could
compile & develop multiple versions of evo. on the same system.

> I don't think those application would be happy to do this. There are a
> few apps that use the .so directly without pkgconfig (iirc
> OpenOffice.org). 

        Quite - we build our OO.o integration (which since it is up-stream has
to run on ~all existing systems - cf. the ISV problem ...), with
internal headers (to unwind the ABI breakage), and explicit dlopening &
hooking out of symbols etc.

> Unless there is a clear nod from the stake holders of those projects, I
> wouldn't be favor of doing this.

        Thanks ! :-)

        Of course, as long as the dlopens still work, I'm fine with renaming
the core library (to suit people's personal hygiene issues) as long as
we have a compat symlink in perpetuity ;-)



 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to