Re: libtool and sonames
>> Federico Di Gregorio <email@example.com> writes:
> right. but the packages are more like libelastic14, libelastic22, ...,
> libelastic123 (go, read configure.in and see what's the default way
> of generating library versioning info...)
Gladly, if you tell me where to find the source for this library.
> at now, the author does not use --version-info, it uses -release instead.
> i can simply provide elastic0.0.15, elastic0.0.16 and so on (with libs
> packages libelastic0.0.15, etc...) but i have to produce a **new**
> package everytime the upstream author does a release. and that is *bad*.
Hmmm... that's what the libtool documentation says you should do. At
least the author is reading the docs.
Again, if the API is really *that* unstable, a) I don't think many
people will be using this library soon and b) it sounds like its being
used as part of a larger project, which again, makes this a good
candidate for a static library, at least for now. Static libraries
aren't inferior as you suggest. It's just a pain to recompile stuff
everytime the library changes, but AFAICS you'll be doing that anyway.
> now, in debian we have to put major version as soname. this is
> required by policy. so the question is: what version number do i put
> in the library? (note that programs compiled on other dists won't
> run anyway...)
What's the soname of the library? (objdump -p libfoo.so | grep SONAME)