Re: libjvm missing .so version number

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

Jack Howarth wrote:
> Andrew,
>    I am just trying to find out if there are any
> rules in gcc development requiring shared libraries
> to have some so version number. Also, I don't see
> that adding one would present a huge problem. Why
> can't the files in lib/gcj-4.x.x have their own
> so version number that is independent of the one
> for libgcj? As long as the ABI for those shared
> libs don't change, I don't see why their so version
> can't stay at .0 or .1.
>            Jack

The library in question (libjvm.so) has different requirements than the 
rest of the libraries associated with gcj.  It has to maintain ABI 
compatibility with an external specification (Sun's JNI specification). 
 So the rules governing its versioning would be different than the 
rules for libgcj.so.

Another thing to consider is that libjvm should be loaded via the 
dlopen() mechanism and is not directly linked to the executable.  This 
eliminates the need or usefulness of any versioning.

This said, I don't see that there would be any harm in giving it a 
version.  But once done, the version would never be changed.

David Daney