[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: soname of libldap in openldap2.2

I got confused by libtool's goof ball versioning semantics.
I'll be reworking it in the next patch release.

Kurt

At 09:09 PM 3/1/2004, Roman Kagan wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 01:11:21PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>> At 01:40 AM 1/7/2004, Masato Taruishi wrote:
>> >Does 202 stand for 2.2?
>> 
>> No.  But its derived from 2.2.  That is, don't expect there
>> to be direct relationship between library interface versioning
>> and release versioning.
>
>But it looks inconsistent:
>
>release         ol_api_lib      library suffix  soname suffix
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>2.2.3beta       2:203:0         .2.0.203        .2
>2.2.4           202:4:0         .202.0.4        .202
>2.2.5           202:4:1         .201.1.4        .201
>2.2.6           202:4:3         .199.3.4        .199
>
>So even if you believe the soname has to be bumped from .2 to .202 it
>shouldn't probably change with every minor version change.
>
>With this new pattern for ol_api_lib you may want to replace
>-version-info with -version-number (will require updating libtool to
>1.5+).
>
>Still could you please remind the reason to change the .so versioning
>scheme?  I haven't found anything relevant on the OpenLDAP site.
>
>  Roman.