Hi Kevin, I do agree that is would be a proper way to handle it. The only problem I see with it is that the point is actually not to provide binary compatibility, nor proper handling of BIC.
At least in the case I have. Namely, the point is for the library to be used *only* for things that are in development - because projects that wish to use it have a longer release cycles than the frameworks. But, on the other hand, if one of those projects were to release a stable version against a 0.x version of the library, it would need BIC handling. Ch! On 13 January 2015 at 03:27, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > Ivan Čukić wrote: >> - 0 soversion to show that the library has no stable ABI. > > I'd actually set both the soname and the fully-versioned name to > libfoo.so.0.1, then if you change something binary-incompatibly, > libfoo.so.0.2, etc. (or use libfoo.so.0.1 etc. as the soname and something > like libfoo.so.0.1.0.0 as the fully-versioned name, if you really want to > track binary-compatible changes too). Unlike libtool, CMake easily allows > you to use such versioning, and it's really the right way to handle it. It > allows both clearly identifying the library as preliminary (whereas > libfoo.so.0 is also very commonly used for the first stable-ABI version of a > library) and tracking binary incompatible changes in a sane way (without > losing the zero major version). > > Kevin Kofler > -- Cheerio, Ivan -- While you were hanging yourself on someone else's words Dying to believe in what you heard I was staring straight into the shining sun
