> So you are suggesting 3.7 should really be 4.0.0 for shared lib
> versioning sanity?
If you wanted to remove the version number from the lib name itself,
yes, there would be no real relation between the official "version"
3.7.x and the actual .so name.
Including the official name in the library
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 root36 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 De
Hi,
> [libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.48.0]
Not necessarely so, see on my system :
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root36 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
lrwxrwxr
I've been looking at splitting up the library packages in OE for
embedded GNU Radio and have run across this issue in master.
[libgnuradio-filter-3.7git.so.0.0.0]
[libgnuradio-core-3.7git.so.0.0.0]
[libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.48.0]
Comparing the strings extracted from the .so with readelf, we can
