On Apr 26, 2018, at 10:16, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> Not quite. I'm noting that the package version isn't a reliable >> indication of the ABI version, and neither (sadly, see the current >> protobuf issues and the issues with LibreSSL) is the library dylib >> name. Thus I'm proposing to have an internal ABI revision number that >> we can use for deciding whether dependents need a rebuild. > > I haven't followed the protobuf issue closely enough to be able to comment on > it here. If they use the same install_name for incompatible versions of their > library, their development process is erroneous.
Now that I've taken a quick look at it, protobuf3-cpp provides libprotobuf.15.dylib while protobuf-cpp provides libprotobuf.9.dylib. Since they are different major versions of the software, their dylib name and therefore install_name are different. This seems perfectly normal and expected to me.
