Re: Question about shared libraries
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:40:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> > Actually it's not version 2.0 of Imlib... its a completely new library
> > called Imlib 2... so the versioning is correct...
>
> However, consider:
>
> - Imlib2 is intended to supersede Imlib
> - Imlib2 and Imlib were written by the same author
> - There will never be a successor to libImlib.so.1 which uses libImlib.so.2
> as its soname
>
> So what difference does it make if the library is called libImlib2.so.1 versus
> libImlib.so.2? None really, except that one unnecessarily includes a number
> in the library /name/, and the other increments the library /version/. Which
> makes one much less cumbersome than the other.
what i like even better is when you have
libfoo version 2.3.5 soname 2.x.x
libfoo2 version 3.4, soname 2.x.x
anyway i agree with steve
imlib2 is ridiculous it's imlib version 2
"no its not linux 2.0, its linux2"
um, no didnt work that way :)
--
Brian Russo <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu>
Debian/GNU Linux <wolfie@debian.org> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <wolfie@lpsg.org> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reply to: