Re: Possible library versioning approach -- (evaluation requested)

[Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>]

> Does anyone else think it would be a good or bad idea to consider as a
> broader recommendation?  Though it would make many library file names
> a lot longer, if it worked right, it seems like it could avoid many of
> the common library linkage problems where sub-library dependencies are
> involved.

It would make package names very much longer.
People already complain about package names containing the full soname.

I don't know if package names have a limit, or having long package
names for libraries really mean much (library packages should be 
pulled in by other packages).

It would be nice to have a generic m4 script dumped into autoconf
if it is going to be recommended, which will try link binaries 
and objdump it and concatenate all the NEEDED fields of 
such binary, to generate the required portion of the soname.

Note that this method has been recommended by libapt-pkg and libstdc++
but not many other projects have taken it up, because this creates
so many different versions that it is almost impossible to keep
cross-distribution binary compatibility.

regards,
	junichi