On 2011-06-14 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Lasse Collin wrote: > > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/specialtopics.html > > If this web page text is correct, then I agree that libtool is doing > the wrong thing for OpenBSD. But of course we should search for any > additional information and consult with relevant OpenBSD maintainers > before making any such change since FAQ text could easily be wrong.
I discussed with Marc Espie from OpenBSD. He wrote: > The rule for us is simple: > - same ABI = same .so.major.minor > - new stuff = bump minor > - incompatible ABI = bump major, reset minor. So the FAQ is correct. He also pointed out that sometimes ABI incompatibilities cannot be foreseen by the upstream developers. So it would be good to have an easy way for packagers to override the library version. OpenBSD's own libtool can read the versions from environment variables. I think such a feature could be OK in GNU Libtool too, if it is easy to add. That way people won't need to add configure options to override the version or patch makefiles. About -version-info vs. -version-number: *If* it turns out that all operating systems supported by Libtool should use a versioning style that is essentially the same as version_type=linux, could -version-number become the recommended option to set the library version? Major:minor:revision is easier to understand than current:revision:age, which in practice is (major+minor):revision:minor. Using a scheme that is easier to understand would hopefully reduce mistakes in library versioning. Naturally this still assumes that no operating system truly needs a different versioning style. -- Lasse Collin | IRC: Larhzu @ IRCnet & Freenode _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool