Re: libusb...
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:21:38PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> "Adam Majer" <adamm@galacticasoftware.com> cum veritate scripsit:
>
> > > I don't know what the guy tries to mean here, but it is probably
> > > a library under the name of "libusb-0.1"
> > > With a soversion of 4
> >
> > Yeah, IMO that soname is screwed up. It should be libusb.so.1.4 or whatever.
> > At least <libname>.so.<version> with version to whatever degree necessary to
> > keep ABI complience between different releases/uploads of the library.
>
> No, it should be something like
>
> libusb.so.4
>
> But many people dislike sonames being a high number,
> thus like the leisure of re-setting the number.
>
> Also, it allows different development libraries, I believe
> with libusb-0.1.so.4, you can link in libraries with "-lusb-0.1"
> and it can coexist easily with "libusb-0.2" which may be sourcewise
> very incompatible.
>
> GNOME seems to be managed in that philosophy, it is taking
> the idea of sonames to a next step.
>
> The only problem being that not many people understand its
> implications, and mechanisms.
True but what is wrong with having libusb.so.1.4? I'm not familiar
with that library, but let's say you have releases 1.4 and 1.5
which are incompatable with themselves [and likewise for other minor
releases]. Then why not just make it libusb.so.1.4 and libusb.so.1.5?
- Adam
Reply to: