Hi,
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
So in libtool terms the library supports two interfaces now.
That translates to current=2 (new interface) and age=1 (support for one
older interface)
I never had any problems with only incrementing the revision and
actually make them match the minor version of the source package.
I'd say that is all right with libtool. The revision number can
certainly be used that way. The revision should be increased with every
release though. So the package micro version would be more natural.
The libtool stuff is nice, but actually there is no big advantage of it.
Anyway, is there any reason not to follow libtool guidelines?
My only big rule is to increment the soname if
you really break the API. If it is fully backward compatible I don't see
the need to do anything. And extensions are fully backware compatible.
Actually it's about forward compatibility. Say you build/package an app
on a system having a lib with rev=1. Then you distribute it to some
system where it's the same lib, just rev is 0. Thats perfectly fine from
libtools point of view. And no package system or linker will complain.
The app won't run because it's been build for the wrong interface, see?
While not an issue while building or developing it is a big issue for
packaging and deployment.
By all means you are encouraged to ask me about every detail that isn't clear.
What does this suppose to mean.
Just bug me with everything that isn't clear. I'm not stuck with my view
on libtool, perhaps I' missing something.
cu,
Christian
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Openobex-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openobex-users
