Hi, On 01/20/2018 01:15 AM, Patrick Monnerat wrote: > On 01/19/2018 11:07 PM, Alois Mahdal wrote: >> Hi Fedora! >> >> TL;DR: What do experienced C/C++ packagers think about this PR, >> considering potential future appearance in Fedora? >> >> https://github.com/naelstrof/slop/pull/94 >> > Using the project version for soname is usually a bad idea, because > soname is related to ABI compatibility, while project releases are not. > > If you upgrade a package containing a shared library with an soname > depending on the project version, you'll break the compatibility with > compiled programs using the shared library, even if the ABI has not > effectively changed. > > That's why you better avoid changing the soname when not needed. > Please note also that setting an soname is generally a developer's task, > not a packager one. > > Libtool implements a "version info" feature from which the soname is > derived. The derivation itself is platform-dependent. > There's some hints and explanation in libtool doc: > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html > > With this convention, the real soname computation can be performed > properly on each platform, depending on the system supported ABI > compatibility.
Thanks a lot for explanation and links, Patrick! aL. PS: The discussion in said PR has been resolved in favor of the PR; it seems that it's not so bad in this case: the project already builds library with soname `libslopy.so`, which is much worse. -- Alois Mahdal <amah...@redhat.com> Platform QE Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. #brno, #daemons, #preupgrade _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
