On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 08:32 -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote: > The library paths are a different beast. Now that you bring it up, I > don't think it's a good idea to encode "version 0.9.8" in the pathname > of the library, as that forces us to keep it around forever. We'd have > to ship every version of the library in the future (0.9.9, 0.10, 1.0, > etc...) even if there are no incompatible changes between libraries in > order to keep applications from breaking. I'm no linker expert, so is > there a linker expert in the house who can provide some advice on what > to ship as a shared object filename? libpcap.so.1?
After having spoken to a few people, the project team is leaving the spec as-is, leaving the symbolic link from libpcap.so to libpcap.so.0.9.8. Releases of libpcap are infrequent and usually don't entail incompatible changes. As such, maintaining compatibility of library versions through symbolic links will likely be manageable for now. In any case, the next release of libpcap is expected to be 1.0, so any fancy tricks that the project team might come up with to play with 0.9.* versioning will likely be needless. To summarize, this is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and the spec in the case directory is fine as-is. -Seb
