This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [v3] update libtool_VERSION

On Mar 19, 2008, Benjamin Kosnik <> wrote:

> So, why the insistence that we change the way we versioning now?

If you don't follow the recommended practice, you're breaking library
compatibility on some systems.  Some shared library systems are more
general than major.minor, and libtool can accommodate them.  By not
following the recommended practices, you may enable some libraries to
pass for compatible ones that aren't, and vice-versa, depending on the
details of the system.  That's why the procedure is in place.

> This is a relatively minor point, IMHO. Dynamic linkers on gnu systems
> are happy with either.


> If possible, I suggest you revisit this point in the future when
> SONAME gets bumped and we have a fresh start.

You can start following the recommended procedure any time you like.
You don't have to wait for a major bump to start benefitting those
systems on which the very notion of major doesn't apply.

Alexandre Oliva
FSF Latin America Board Member
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{,}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{,}

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]