On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> Much to my disappointment, I found that the newly-released libkmod v5 >> has made the following non-trivial change to its source tree, the latter >> of which I want to bring to attention: > > [stuff removed] > >> (The numbers are directly fed into libtool's -version-info argument.) As >> you can see, the CURRENT number was decreased, which, according to >> common libtool sense, is not something that one should normally do. Why >> do I care? Well, I happen to be active in toying with system tools >> (especially the ones I have to use sooner or later), as well as distro >> packaging, with a preference to get things right. >> >> Unfortunately, I was unable to convince the kmod people of this fact. >> Kay Sievers and Lucas De Marchi's argumentation is that (a) kmod is >> linux-only and (b) there has 'never been a libkmod.so.2' before, or even >> something about (c) not caring about GNU/"the mess that libtool is". > > > Hopefully your intention is only to illustrate what projects should not do > and not to submit a patch. This libkmod project seems to be less than two > months old and perhaps the developers still have a bit to learn about > library versioning. > > While libtool does compute the name to apply to the library (using ELF > rules), build-time (ld) and run-time (ld.so) linking is done via standard > system tools and so they determine how the naming gets used. > > ELF is where the rules come from, not libtool. Libtool tries to make it > easy to follow the ELF rules while working as best as possible with other > schemes.
I'm a bit surprised of that modification, as I know the guys behind libkmod, and they are good programmers. I'll try to discuss with them about that regards Vincent _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
