Quoting Balazs Scheidler :
> I use it this way (as a user of libdbi):
>
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES(LIBDBI, dbi >= $LIBDBI_MIN_VERSION,, LIBDBI_LIBS="")
>
> Do you have a more exact problem that I might be able to explain?
>
No thanks, this is about all I needed to know. I just never got round
to look
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 17:48 +0100, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Ericsson :
>
> >> Why not just use pkg-config and install a .pc file? Or am I missing
> >> something?
> >>
> >
> > What you're missing is that no compiler in the world will ever look at
> > a .pc file, and the information
Markus Hoenicka writes:
> > #define LIBDBI_VERSION ((MAJOR * 1) + (MINOR * 100) + (REVISION))
[...]
> >> major = current - age
> >> minor = age + 8
> >> patch = revision
> >>
I've checked in updated versions of configure.in and
include/dbi/dbi.h.in that implement a version numbering schem
Hi,
Quoting Andreas Ericsson :
> Sure, but please add a LIBDBI_VERSION macro as well, or people
> will start tweaking them in themselves, which will cause headache
> for you if you want to add one later.
>
> #define LIBDBI_VERSION ((MAJOR * 1) + (MINOR * 100) + (REVISION))
>
> should do it.
>
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Florian Forster writes:
> > What Andreas is discussing is, as far as I see, the versioning schema
> > used by the GNU linker. Markus is talking about the libtool versioning
> > system. Unfortunately, that's not the same thing.
>
> Well analyzed. I should have p
Florian Forster wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 05:09:15PM +0100, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
>> I'm not going to do that, as discussed before on this list. In brief,
>> we forgot to update the libtool interface version info in the past. In
>> the worst case your suggestion will cause us
Good morning,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:06:48AM +0100, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> major = current - age
> minor = age
> patch = revision
>
> If that serves everyone's needs, I'll be happy to use this.
it got my vote :)
> However, 0.1.0 is not an obvious successor for 0.8.3. So, should we
> use:
Hi,
Florian Forster writes:
> What Andreas is discussing is, as far as I see, the versioning schema
> used by the GNU linker. Markus is talking about the libtool versioning
> system. Unfortunately, that's not the same thing.
Well analyzed. I should have pointed out upfront that libdbi uses
lib
Hi again,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 05:09:15PM +0100, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> I'm not going to do that, as discussed before on this list. In brief,
> we forgot to update the libtool interface version info in the past. In
> the worst case your suggestion will cause us to forget to uptate the
> inter
Hi,
Quoting Florian Forster :
>
> It'll work, in the sense of ``people will find a way to calculate what
> they really need from these numbers'', but is that really necessary?
> Just to prove a point?
I'm a bit tied up right now, so I'll attend to the details later. Just
to let you know that it
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas Ericsson writes:
> > If you add functions to the library, it will remain LINK compatible
> > with applications compiled against older versions of the library (so
> > the ABI-version must not be changed), but programmers who wish to utilize
>
> I don't u
Hi,
I have the feeling you're talking at cross purposes here.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:14:27AM +0100, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> Andreas Ericsson writes:
> > If you add functions to the library, it will remain LINK compatible
> > with applications compiled against older versions of the library
Hi,
Andreas Ericsson writes:
> If you add functions to the library, it will remain LINK compatible
> with applications compiled against older versions of the library (so
> the ABI-version must not be changed), but programmers who wish to utilize
I don't understand libtool's interface definitio
Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> So, to sum it up:
>>
>> Next release, called "1.0":
>> LIBDBI_LIB_CURRENT 1
>> LIBDBI_LIB_REVISION 0
>> LIBDBI_LIB_AGE 1
>>
>> If we fix some bugs in that release, we'll have "1.1":
>>
>> LIBDBI_LIB_CURRENT 1
>> LIBDBI_LIB_REVISION 1
>> LIBDBI_LIB_AGE 1
>>
>> If we add f
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
>
> Quoting Florian Forster :
>
>
>> By all means, introduce version testing macros/defines, such as:
>> #define LIBDBI_MAJOR 0
>> #define LIBDBI_MINOR 8
>> #define LIBDBI_PATCH 3
>
> I'm not going to do that, as discussed before on this list. In brief,
> we forgot t
Quoting Andreas Ericsson :
>> Why not just use pkg-config and install a .pc file? Or am I missing
>> something?
>>
>
> What you're missing is that no compiler in the world will ever look at
> a .pc file, and the information should be available inside the library
> headers to be of any use.
>
Besi
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Markus Hoenicka wrote:
>> Hi there,
>
>>> #define LIBDBI_VERSION ((100 * LIBDBI_MAJOR) \
>>> + (1000 * LIBDBI_MINOR) \
>>> + LIBDBI_PATCH)
>>>
>> I'll be happy to do something along these lines, based on the version
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> Hi there,
>> #define LIBDBI_VERSION ((100 * LIBDBI_MAJOR) \
>> + (1000 * LIBDBI_MINOR) \
>> + LIBDBI_PATCH)
>>
>
> I'll be happy to do something along these lines, based on the version
> numbers that we have.
>
Hi there,
Quoting Florian Forster :
> I think you're making the (common) mistake to confuse API and ABI
> versions. It is not useful for a C program (or its compiler) to know the
> ABI version. It's used by the linker to figure out if an installed
> version of the library is compatible with the l
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 03:13:53PM +0100, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> They do, but in a reasonable way. LIB_CURRENT is the API version
> number proper. LIB_REVISION numbers the revisions that do not change
> the API (what you call "micro-releases"). LIB_AGE indicates how many
> version numbers th
Florian Forster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 03:13:53PM +0100, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
>> They do, but in a reasonable way. LIB_CURRENT is the API version
>> number proper. LIB_REVISION numbers the revisions that do not change
>> the API (what you call "micro-releases"). LIB_AGE indicat
Quoting Andreas Ericsson :
>> LIB_{CURRENT,REVISION,AGE} for quite a while.
>
> But aren't those determining the .so-version as well? If so, it wouldn't
> be correct to update them with micro-releases, since the linker would
> believe a later version is incompatible with an earlier one.
>
They do
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi. Thanks for the quick reply :)
> Quoting Andreas Ericsson :
>
>> My dev-box uses libdbi 0.8.3, but the build-box uses 0.8.1. Some
>> functions I'd like to use (dbi_conn_escape_string_copy() among
>> others) are in 0.8.3, but not in 0.8.2. I suppose I could conv
Hi,
Quoting Andreas Ericsson :
> My dev-box uses libdbi 0.8.3, but the build-box uses 0.8.1. Some
> functions I'd like to use (dbi_conn_escape_string_copy() among
> others) are in 0.8.3, but not in 0.8.2. I suppose I could convert
> all the queries to use dbi_conn_quote_string_copy() instead, but
24 matches
Mail list logo
