TA> Otherwise, shall we rather use an SONAME like "libnetsnmp.so.5.<minor>" TA> (e.g. libnetsnmp.so.5.2) and thus require applications to relink when TA> upgrading from 5.x to 5.y?
Ummm... I'm not sure I fully understand the ramifications of such a decision, but it probably sounds sensible. RS> Also, if we'd decide to do it, RS> shall we start it from 5.3 onwards? Or for all upcoming 5.[123] releases? > All releases. We have had changes that apply to all releases. We have had > problems in the past with people linking to old libraries when they have a > mixtures of installs, some not properly removed. But if we introduce this change for 5.3, then won't new applications pick up the "so.5.3" linking? What's the benefit of changing the existing lines, and hence breaking existing applications? I can sort-of see an argument for distinguishing the 5.2.x line, given this is still being actively maintained. But 5.1.x is basically winding down, and 5.0.x is completely closed. So I'm unconvinced that it's worth distinguishing between the two at this late stage. But I'm no expert on compilers and linkers, so am open to being corrected. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
