[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: soname of libldap in openldap2.2
- To: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: soname of libldap in openldap2.2
- From: Roman Kagan <rkagan@mail.ru>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:09:01 +0300
- Content-disposition: inline
- In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.0.20040110130804.041ccfd8@127.0.0.1>
- References: <20040107184006.11c33287.taru@valinux.co.jp> <6.0.0.22.0.20040110130804.041ccfd8@127.0.0.1>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 01:11:21PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> At 01:40 AM 1/7/2004, Masato Taruishi wrote:
> >Does 202 stand for 2.2?
>
> No. But its derived from 2.2. That is, don't expect there
> to be direct relationship between library interface versioning
> and release versioning.
But it looks inconsistent:
release ol_api_lib library suffix soname suffix
-------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.3beta 2:203:0 .2.0.203 .2
2.2.4 202:4:0 .202.0.4 .202
2.2.5 202:4:1 .201.1.4 .201
2.2.6 202:4:3 .199.3.4 .199
So even if you believe the soname has to be bumped from .2 to .202 it
shouldn't probably change with every minor version change.
With this new pattern for ol_api_lib you may want to replace
-version-info with -version-number (will require updating libtool to
1.5+).
Still could you please remind the reason to change the .so versioning
scheme? I haven't found anything relevant on the OpenLDAP site.
Roman.