On 06/27/2013 10:18 AM, Sylvain Munaut wrote: > Hi, > >> [libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.48.0] > > Not necessarely so, see on my system : > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 36 Dec 16 2012 > /usr/lib/libboost_date_time-mt-1_49.so -> > libboost_date_time-mt-1_49.so.1.49.0 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 72168 Dec 16 2012 > /usr/lib/libboost_date_time-mt-1_49.so.1.49.0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Dec 16 2012 > /usr/lib/libboost_date_time-mt.so -> libboost_date_time-mt-1_49.so > >> Comparing the strings extracted from the .so with readelf, we can see >> the gnuradio libraries are not properly versioned (I show the boost one >> for comparison). >> >> I expect to see: >> >> libgnuradio-filter.so.3.7.0 > > You should read > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html > > The 3 numbers there are the 3 numbers after the .so.xxx > > Imagine you have libXXX.so.1.2.3 and the libXXX.so & libXXX.so.1 > symbolic link which is the common style. > > In general the libXXX.so should point to whatever you want to link to > when compiling a new software and using -lXXX > The binary will then contain the info that it will try to load > libXXX.so.1 and that implies that all libXX.so.1.N.N have the same > ABI. > The .2.3 part should only be used for internal revisions that don't > change any thing externally so that a software compiled against an > older lib will be able to load the new one without any issue. > > This would clearly not be the case for libgnuradio.3 ...
So you are suggesting 3.7 should really be 4.0.0 for shared lib versioning sanity? Philip > > Cheers, > > Sylvain > > _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
