Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 05:18:32PM CET: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> Here is a testsuite addition to get some exposure to versioning. >> OK to push (and add Mike to THANKS)? It'd be good if somebody >> proof-read it so there are no silly typos or thinkos. > > I read it and did not see any silly typos or thinkos, but then again it > is not easy reading. It should be interesting to see where these tests > report a failure.
Well, I did test that setting $version_type to "qnx" on my GNU/Linux system would cause the failure that Mike reported, so one can expect they are not completely useless, e.g., for porting to a new platform, or for ensuring that future changes to ltmain will not break documented semantics. OTOH, the tests need a gloss over. Mike's testing already exposed one bug in them, in that one cannot assume the major version of a library is $current - $age, it might just be $current (plus or minus one or so). Another bit, my test for this hypothesis: | If two libraries have identical CURRENT and AGE numbers, then the | dynamic linker chooses the library with the greater REVISION number. is too weak for what I thought of. On GNU/Linux, you can install two libraries differing only in revision, and `ldconfig -n $libdir' will take care to let the respective versioned symlink point to the newer revision. Cool, huh? I didn't even know that, but I think that's what the sentence above tried to imply. Problem of course is, this surely doesn't happen for systems that don't encode a revision into the name, and may not either hold for some that do. I'd have to test, and will try to come up with a better patch (and documentation fix) for this hypothesis then. Thanks for the review. Cheers, Ralf