On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:05:14PM +0300, Maxim Uvarov wrote: >On 12/01/16 01:09, Anders Roxell wrote: >> Since the ABI isn't changed we shouldn't bump the age only the revision. >> The curl project [1] describes the rules in a easier way. >> >>[1] https://github.com/curl/curl/blob/master/lib/Makefile.am#L95 > >curl project is not official documentation for autotools. So we can take this >under account but can not just follow it. > >So we have 2 official links describing that numbers: > >1. https://autotools.io/libtool/version.html >2. >https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html > >From link 1: >"Always increase the revision value. " > >From link 2: >"If the library source code has changed at all since the last update, then >increment revision (‘c:r:a’ becomes ‘c:/r+1/:a’). "
Hi guys, Two things here... 1. Maxim's two docs say exactly what the curl doc says - just in different language. Also from link 1: """ Warning A common mistake is to assume that the three values passed to -version-info map directly into the three numbers at the end of the library name. This is not the case, and indeed, current, revision and age are applied differently depending on the operating system that one is using. """ The libtool -version_info stuff is *horrendously* confusing for many people precisely because of this awful mismatch :-( WTF they've defined things this way I have no idea... 2. That just describes the *revision*, however. You've also increased the *age* by 2, and that's what Anders was complaining about. From the doc you have referenced here (link 1), increasing the *age* but not touching *current* makes no sense: * Increase the current value whenever an interface has been added, removed or changed. * Increase the age value only if the changes made to the ABI are backward compatible. The curl doc again agrees with that. Do these two points make sense to people? Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcint...@linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
