Hi Joerg,
Am 07.10.2010 um 16:14 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
<[email protected]> wrote:
(Phil wrote)
I think you might do well to go with my original theory, slightly
expanded:
Unless you find a shared object, of filename "lib*.so*", AND it
has a
"SONAME", AND that name has a double-numeric rev (eg:
libfoo.so.#.#), then you should just leave it alone.
I understand and I agree with the first two criteria: It makes sense
to separate the library out, if it is named lib*.so*, and has a
SONAME. I don't get the bit with the double-numeric versions. What
matters is the presence of SONAME, and the contents is a
conventional
notation, why would any numbers matter?
(I did explain this previously, but I'll repeat myself for this case)
It has been my experience that libraries with only a single digit
signifier in the SONAME, tend to respect backward compatibility, and
the value of a stable API.
This is all outdated technology. library versioning is nowerdays
done via
mapfiles. This allows even to link against an older lib at runtime
than you
did at compile time iff the old lib supports the interfaces needed
by a
specific program.
Unfortunately, few OSS authors understand how to correctly deal with
library
interface versioning.
This is very interesting. We have a long-standing issue about
incompatible
API-changes to libnet:
http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2009-March/007191.html
Could these maps help solve the issue?
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
