On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:53:54 +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 06:51:58PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: > > > [...] > > I'm taking hobu into the loop because he kindly contacted me about 1.6 > last month. Do you have any comments? I guess the liblas_c contains > the C binding while the liblas.so is C++ (?), but I could be wrong. I would've said that as well, but "objdump -x" gives mangled C++-like symbols for both of them: $ objdump -t liblas_c.so.2.0.0 ... 0003a000 w F .text 00000021 _ZN6liblas4guidC1ERKS0_ 0003a022 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD2Ev 0003a022 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD1Ev ... $ objdump -t liblas.so.2.0.0 000f0a12 w F .text 0000003f _ZN6liblas4guidC1ERKjRKtS4_RA8_Kh 000f0a52 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD2Ev 000f0a52 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD1Ev 000f0a58 w F .text 0000002c _ZN6liblas4guidaSERKS0_ ... Thus, I can't really tell the difference, apart from the huge difference in size :) $ ls -lah liblas*.so.2* -rwxrwxr-x 1 neo neo 1,3M 12 feb 18.33 liblas_c.so.2.0.0 -rwxrwxr-x 1 neo neo 11M 12 feb 18.33 liblas.so.2.0.0 $ > So maybe we should retain a versioned name for the C++ interface > to avoid possible future ABI breakage... Some clarifications about > the API roadmap for liblas would be great. Indeed :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature