On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awill...@redhat.com>wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:27 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On 02/19/2014 01:25 PM, Honza Horak wrote: > > > On 01/15/2014 04:16 PM, Jan Staněk wrote: > > > > > Looking around to some other projects (e.g. v8) people usually tend to > > > use version of the package to be soname version of the library. > However, > > > I see some questions raised by that approach: > > > > A pretty detailed discussion on this problem can be found in > > "info libtool" > > > > In short: Using a package's version number as SONAME is a non-helpful > > abuse. What counts is "ABI-versions" and "ABI-version compatiblity". > > If upstream isn't versioning the shared library correctly, it's > relatively unlikely that you can rely on them maintaining ABI > compatibility between releases. It's also usually beyond the > capabilities of a downstream packager to comprehensively check ABI > compatibility between releases. Given both these things, it actually can > make sense in several respects to use the package version. > > If upstream actually is aware of the concept of ABI stability and has > some kind of sane system for maintaining it, it really ought to be > relatively easy to get them to version the so correctly. > It's not perfect (but it's always getting better), abi-compliance-checker is a great tool. I use it for openCOLLADA which doesn't maintain a soversion and has no plans to. I arbitrarily set it to 0.1 and I check the ABI compatibility when I do new builds. If an incompatibility is found I bump the soversion. Richard
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
