At 7:30 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:21:17 +0100 >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > I mean, what is bad about the package name glib2? Assuming there will >> >> be a version 2.2, it will be glib2-2.2 >> >> >> >> If say 2.4 was binary incompatible, we could make a glib24-2.4 >> >> package, however, I strongly doubt that will be necessary - for a >> >> binary compatibility break, they'll go to version 3 I think. >> > >> >According to our shlibs policy, package name should contains it's >> >major version number. It is 0 for glib2 libraries. >> > >> >Probably, gtk peoples will keep compatibility under glib2 and will >> >changes it's name to glib3 if compatiblility breaks. But should we >> >break our policy and make a special naming rule for glib? >> >> No. We don't have to break any rules. The major version is 2, so the >> package should be called "glib2". If it laters turns out that glib >> 2.1 is incompatible, and we want to coexsting packages, we could name >> it glib2-1, but I think this is an extremly unlikely scenario. > >Hmm, am I misunderstanding shlibs policy? It says > > Each software package for which shared libraries can be built must > have a major version number N. The major version number is only supposed > to change when a backwards-incompatible change in the library's API has > been made.
So for glib, that would be "1" for the current version, and "2" for the new version. For backward compatibility, we leave it out for the old version, so we have the package (base) names glib and glib2 >and > > When building shared libraries under major version N, it is important > that the "install_name" of the library be %p/lib/bar.N.dylib. (You can > find the install_name by running otool -L on your library.) The actual > library file should be installed at > > %i/lib/bar.N.x.y.dylib Currently, for glib 1.2.0, we have: libglib.dylib libglib-1.2.0.dylib libglib-1.2.0.0.10.dylib glib doesn't use a "." but a "-", however this is completly valid, various other packages do it this way (maybe the Shlibs policy file should be changed to mention that). As you said, 2.0 has these: libglib-2.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.0.0.dylib Actually, I'd expect the "master" package also to have libglib.dylib, or are glib 2.0 programs supposed to link with -lglib-2.0 ? In any case, the major version 2 is clearly encoded here as well. > > >`major version number N' and `major version N' in these sentences have >different meaning? No, they mean the same, at least the way I interpret the docs. Maybe they should be rephrased somehow to clarify what actually is meant... Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
