Re: Guile-gtk 0.19pre

[Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de>]

Steve Tell <tell@telltronics.org> writes:

> The 0.19 prerelease still builds its shared libraries with names
> like "libguilegtk-1.2.so.0.0.0"
> 
> Should the numbers be incremented to help indicate that this .so
> isn't compatible with the old one?  Or is it actually
> drop-in-replacable?

I can't speak for Ariel, but I haven't put any serious thoughts into
versioning the libtool libraries.  I wanted to put that off until
guile-gtk-1.0, but given that guile-gtk is moving slowly recently (due
to me), and people are probably using it in production environments
already, maybe we should start with versioning now.
 
> Guile itself appears to have these library versions:
> 	guile-1.3.4	libguile.so.6.0.0
> 	guile-1.4	libguile.so.9.0.0

I, too, am of the opinion that the libtool version numbers don't need
to correspond to the package version numbers.

What I would like to have would be a tool that could assess a library,
the changes to it, and say whether the changes are binary compatible
or not.  Is there something like that?  It wouldn't need to be
perfect, and could defer tough decisions to the user on a case by case
basis.
 
> It looks as simple as passing the appropriate arg to the -version-info
> libtool option;  I think 0:1:0 might be the appropriate one given that the
> only changes are internal ones to build with guile 1.4.

I intended 0.0.0 to be used as a magical number for `no versioning in
place, yet'.  So I think we should start with `1.0.0'.