10:24 a.m.
Hi all,
upstream has recently released gambatte v0.4.1.
While showing differences between v0.4.0 and v0.4.1, it seems to me
that the public interface of libgambatte changed. Therefore I need to
bump the soname.
Upstream doesn't provide a soname, so when I submitted v0.4.0 for
review I added it as libgambatte.so.0; libgambatte.so.0.4.0 and
libgambatte.so (in the devel package) are symlinks for
libgambatte.so.0. Now I don't know if I did the right thing in
providing a soname that doesn't match the version.
How would you handle it?
Spec file (of v0.4.0) is available here:
http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/rpms/gambatte/devel/gambatte.spec?revisio...
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Bye,
Andrea.
10:55 a.m.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:24:00 +0100, Andrea wrote:
Hi all,
upstream has recently released gambatte v0.4.1.
While showing differences between v0.4.0 and v0.4.1, it seems to me
that the public interface of libgambatte changed. Therefore I need to
bump the soname.
Upstream doesn't provide a soname, so when I submitted v0.4.0 for
review I added it as libgambatte.so.0; libgambatte.so.0.4.0 and
libgambatte.so (in the devel package) are symlinks for
libgambatte.so.0. Now I don't know if I did the right thing in
providing a soname that doesn't match the version.
How would you handle it?
Obviously, you should have talked to upstream _prior_ to inventing an
arbitrary soname. Not only is it binary incompatible with other
distributions, it is also incompatible with future releases by upstream.
Just imagine you continued with your versioning scheme and some day
in the future, when you are at libgambatte.so.4, upstream would
release the first official libgambatte.so.1.
libgambatte.so.0.4.0 would be wrong, because the soname for
v0.4.0 and 0.4.1 would not be different. Probably you wanted to
write libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0, which would be a better choice,
which requires rebuilds each time the full version changes.
11:25 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Obviously, you should have talked to upstream _prior_ to inventing
an
arbitrary soname. Not only is it binary incompatible with other
distributions, it is also incompatible with future releases by upstream.
Just imagine you continued with your versioning scheme and some day
in the future, when you are at libgambatte.so.4, upstream would
release the first official libgambatte.so.1.
You are right. I should have talked with upstream first. My mistake.
I'll talk to them ASAP.
libgambatte.so.0.4.0 would be wrong, because the soname for
v0.4.0 and 0.4.1 would not be different. Probably you wanted to
write libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0, which would be a better choice,
which requires rebuilds each time the full version changes.
Just to be sure to understand correctly, you mean:
libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0 as soname
libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0.4.0 symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0
libgambatte-0.4.0.so symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0
Next release (version 0.4.1) would be:
libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0 as soname
libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0.4.1 symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0
libgambatte-0.4.1.so symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0
Is it right? Is the libgambatte-0.4.x.so.0.4.x symlink needed?
Thanks,
Andrea.
12:02 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:25:57 +0100, Andrea wrote:
> libgambatte.so.0.4.0 would be wrong, because the soname for
> v0.4.0 and 0.4.1 would not be different. Probably you wanted to
> write libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0, which would be a better choice,
> which requires rebuilds each time the full version changes.
Just to be sure to understand correctly, you mean:
libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0 as soname
libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0.4.0 symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0
libgambatte-0.4.0.so symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0
No, libgambatta-0.4.0.so.0 as soname _and_ file name, no minor versions
appended. If soname and file name match, you don't need a symlink.
Until the ABI/API become stable, you want the soname to change
frequently, too.
9:46 p.m.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
libgambatte.so.0.4.0 would be wrong, because the soname for
v0.4.0 and 0.4.1 would not be different. Probably you wanted to
write libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0, which would be a better choice,
which requires rebuilds each time the full version changes.
Well, another solution would be to just use libgambatte.so.0.4.1 as the
soname, with no libgambatte.so.0 symlink. AFAIK, ldconfig won't add that
symlink if the soname is set to libgambatte.so.0.4.1.
Kevin Kofler
5794
days inactive
5794
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andrea Musuruane -
Kevin Kofler -
Michael Schwendt