[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Using libtool -release versus -version-info breaks packages (ITS#3035)
At 06:44 AM 3/24/2004, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>* Kurt D. Zeilenga (Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) wrote:
>> Does anybody have experience with doing something like:
>> -release 2.2 -version-info 1:0:0
>> That is, do such constructions works on most platforms.
>> Libtool seems to construct:
>> # Names of this library.
>> library_names=3D'liblber-2.2.so.1 liblber-2.2.so liblber.so'
>> # The name of the static archive.
>> If this works, this might met our requirements. Comments?
>Alright, this doesn't really work because it means that -llber could
>actually mean any of the versions which is generally not what you really
Of the choices, this choice is the best fit for the project.
We want -llber to continue to work.
>You should be making a distinction between the major releases in
>OpenLDAP because in general you don't expect people to be able to move
>=66rom 2.0 to 2.2 w/o changing something (API differences).
I expect people to be able to make such moves. An application designed
for 2.0 should compile just fine with 2.2.
>Use a different library name for the major versions (2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0,
>Your idea above probably wouldn't actually be a problem for Debian since
>we don't allow people to try and have multiple -dev packages installed
>at the same time (because of the .so symlink) anyway, but it wouldn't
>really be much fun for us to deal with in the packaging. It's also not
>something we'd recommend.
Funny... I actually got the idea from the Debian Library Packaging Guide. :-)
>What I think we probably *would* do is introduce symbol versioning which
>then followed the SONAME, so something like- LDAP_2_2_SO_0,=20
I don't think symbol versioning is supported broadly enough for us
to use it (in official releases). But if you want to, have fun.