On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > Could you tell me why you are using > > > -release @RELEASE@ instead of -version 0:0:0 ?
> > The regular libtool versioning scheme is only good for C libraries, i.e. > > where you can exactly tell when an interface has been added, changed or > > removed. For C++, this is difficult, since you need to take all sorts of > > compiler characteristics into account. The basic plan is to increment > > micro if the header file did not change, minor if it changed, but > > recompiling the app would still work, and major if recompiling wouldn't > > help either. > I think you are not explaining to me clearly your reasoning. > Are you saying that with every change every single package that > depends on this shared library must be recompiled ? With every change to a header file, yes. C++ libraries are only seldom binary compatible across revisions. libsocket++ only has a single public header file, and most of its extensibility is through a plugin architecture, so in fact a recompile is only needed if the (abstract) interface class changes. Since the compiler is allowed to reorder and pad classes and structs, I cannot tell for sure what changes are incompatible, so I give it a new interface version each time I change something. > I have an impression that in this scheme even a change in minor > version requires a rebuild of every binary. Yes, that's the plan. When the autobuilder is finished, this will happen automatically (so you can drop old versions of the library from the archive). Simon -- GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Simon.Richter.asc Fingerprint: 040E B5F7 84F1 4FBC CEAD ADC6 18A0 CC8D 5706 A4B4 Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
