Re: Possible library versioning approach -- (evaluation requested)
Junichi Uekawa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I am not sure this is the right solution, but this scale much
>> better than using 1,2,3,4. and it will be easier to handle in the
>> long run, and is self-explanatory. Also the soname is not mixed
>> with the name.
> If you are using libtool and automake, it would be:
> LDFLAGS = ..... -release @OTHERLIB_NAMES@
Doesn't -release actually change the library name, not the soname?
What I (and I presume Bill) had been discussing was
Among other things, the former would mean that -lfoo was always
correct. The latter would not. If you weren't using libtool I
presume setting an arbitrary soname would usually be trivial, but
unfortunately with libtool, I'm not sure it's possible, or that the
maintainers would have any interest in making it possible.
> and checking other sonames in configure time:
> However, I don't know of a way to reliably check sonames in
> configure scripts...
I'd wondered about that too, but in many cases, for example for glib
and guile, it's easy to figure it out via glib-config and guile-config
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4