From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Vollmer To: Steve Tell Cc: Ariel Rios , Guile-GTK List Subject: Re: Guile-gtk 0.19pre Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:14:00 -0000 Message-id: <87bszwtxb8.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00003.html Steve Tell 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'.