Nooooo! :)
It would be good for everyone to read the Libtool documentation to
see why versioning on the release number would be a really bad idea.
Then comment. But my opinion would be that you should change based
on interface changes, not based on release numbers.
Brian
On Oct 15, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
WHAT: Add versioning to all OMPI libraries so that shared libraries
use the real version number in the filename (vs. the current "*.so.
0.0.0")
WHY: It's a Good Thing(tm) to do.
WHERE: Minor changes in a few Makefile.am's; probably some small
tweaking to top-level configure.ac and/or some support m4 files.
WHEN: After timeout.
TIMEOUT: COB, Tuesday Oct 23rd, 2007
-----
Currently, all OMPI shared libraries are created with the extension
".so.0.0.0". We have long discussed using Libtool properly to use a
real/meaningful version number instead of "0.0.0" but no one has ever
gotten a round tuit.
I propose that v1.3 is [finally] the time to do this properly. I'm
trolling through the configure/build system for a few other issues; I
could pick this up along the way. My specific proposal is that all
shared libraries be suffixed the numeric version number of Open MPI
itself. For example, the first release that uses this functionality
will have libmpi.so.1.3.0.
Note that this still does not enable installing multiple versions of
OMPI into the same prefix (for lots of other reasons not covered
here), but at least it does allow multiple libraries in the same tree
for backwards binary compatibility issues, and gives a visual
reference of the library's version number in its filename.
DSOs will remain un-suffixed (e.g., mca_btl_openib.so).
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
