On 6/17/2011 5:26 AM, Lasse Collin wrote: > At that point, Debian had bumped major to 2. Other distros might have > had other versions. If I had tracked the ABI breakages in development > versions, current in -version-info would now be close to a three-digit > number. Probably I wouldn't have remembered to update the version number > on every ABI breakage. So it was much simpler to not track the ABI > breakages until a stable release.
FYI, this is actually the recommended approach (at least, during periods rapid development where the API changes a lot, or /between/ official tarball releases of the source). However, I find this "recommended practice" a bit risky, because after three months of development one is likely to /forget/ that patch ae76b23f from six weeks ago changed the API, when it comes to update -version-info and package up the new -src tarball. > People were packaging Git snapshots so incrementing current only for > official releases (to keep version numbers low) wouldn't have worked so > well, although I admit that I made releases far too rarely. There were > ABI breakages between 4.999.9beta and 5.0.0, so even if I were > incrementing the library version only when making a release, I would > have had to increment the version for 5.0.0 anyway. Sure, I get/got that. It's just that, /ideally/, you would have simply incremented to 1:0:0. However, you chose to increment to 5:0:0 for two reasons -- one good, and one somewhat misguided IMO. The good reason: to leave "room" for people like me (cygwin, mingw) and debian, who had been tracking pre-releases and had 'used up' soname 1 and 2 (and possibly more) in addition to the "official" prerelease soname 0. The bad reason: let's jump to soname 5 because the package version number is 5.0. -- Chuck _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
