Update soname

Ulrich Drepper drepper@redhat.com
Tue Feb 20 16:38:00 GMT 2001


"Anthony Green" <green@redhat.com> writes:

> Bryce wrote:
> > No, good idea. We should probibly make it "libgcj.so.3.0.0" to make it
> > clear what release the libgcj came from.
> 
> This is the versioning scheme that the libtool authors warn against in their
> manual.  The suggest that it's better not to even try to keep these version
> numbers in sync.

The above format is generally bad.  It was treated magically in the
old days (Linux with a.out) where selection is based on this number.
The numbers will probably have nothing in common with the version
numbers of the package.

Much better IMO is what we do in glibc

  libc-2.2.2.so
  libc.so.6 -> libc-2.2.2.so

I.e., you clearly separate between package name (libc-2.2.2) and
interface number (6).  The interface number can and will be different
on different platforms/architectures which is not that problematic in
this case since the package name remains the same.

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------



More information about the Java mailing list