Re: library soversion

[mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu]

Please read the libtool info files.  Library versions != Source versions.
Library versions are dependent on binary-compatibility, or should be,
and this is fully documented in the package 'libtool-doc' in the
section on Versioning.  And then forward the information to
upstream so that they know, as well.  Hopefully you can reach a
consensus from that.


On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:40:28PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> I have a library package at version 2.01, and the soversion in it is 0.0.0
> (seems upstream hadn't heard about library versioning). Now, I'm
> considering packaging a new upstream version (2.3.4, still in prerelease
> though), but they *still* haven't heard about library versioning, so
> compiling the new source still just yields 0.0.0. And the new version is
> binary-incompatible with the old release (some C++ classes changed).
> 
> What course of action is recommended here? I guess that perhaps I could
> hack the upstream makefiles to add some library version, but then which
> version to use? Or just rename the library? Hmm... or simply drop the old
> version, since I seem to maintain all the packages that currently depend
> on it anyway?
> 
> 
> --  
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;; Matthew Danish                         email: mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu ;;
;; OpenPGP public key available from:        'finger mrd@db.debian.org' ;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;