[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I read a bit in libtool.info an _I_ think we should switch from
> "-version-info" to "-release", which might not be "the right thing
> to do" but at least we stay compatible with the older scheme.
> Mesa (not to say other libGl's we wanna be compatible to) was not
> developed with libtools understanding of "library versions".
>
> So changing
> libglut_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info $(LIBGLUT_VERSION)
> to
> libglut_la_LDFLAGS = -release $(LIBGLUT_VERSION)
>
> and defining LIBGLUT_VERSION = 3.7.x in configure.in
> (x = Mesa version)
>
> Same for libglu and libGL.
I tried this. No go. Using -release, if LIBGLUT_VERSION
is x.y.z then you get a file named libGL-x.y.z.so instead
of libGL.so.x.y.z
I spent some time wrestling with automake to make it generate
the libnames I want. What a $!%@#$& headache!
In configure.in suppose you set LIBGL_VERSION=C:R:A where C=current,
R=revision and A=age. Then the library file will be named
libGL.so.M.A.R where M = C - A. And that's just for Linux! The
naming method/computation is different of other OS's! I don't
understand the logic behind this. As it is now, I don't know what
version numbers will result on other OS's.
The best I could manage (for Linux) is to make libGL.so.1.2.0 with
LIBGL_VERSION=3:0:2, libGLU.so.1.2.0 with LIBGLU_VERSION=3:0:2 and
libglut.so.3.7.0 with LIBGLUT_VERSION=10:0:7
Thomas Tanner originally contributed the automake support but doesn't
appear to me reading the list anymore. If anyone else can explain
what's going on I'd appreciate it.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
