Marcel,
Am 20.05.2009 um 22:06 schrieb Marcel Holtmann:
> Hi Christian,
>
>>> Sine the USB changes break the API compatibility, -version-info
>>> 2:0:0
>>> should be the right thing to do. Or not?
>>
>> You may want to reset the age and release numbers, but decreasing the
>> API version ('current' in libtool terms) is obviously a bad choice.
>>
>> You need to stick with 6:0:0 (that's 6:0:5 in case we want to fake
>> compatibility).
>
> now you confused me. We break the ABI and API compatibility and so
> enforcing a new SONAME is important. What is the importance to jump
> from
> 1 to 6 in this case. I don't see any reason for that. Hence I was just
> going back to 2:0:0 to start over with a new SONAME.
We are currently at ABI version 5, stepping back to ABI version 2
could lead to trouble.
But you are right, starting fresh and with a soname that hasn't been
in use, any pick is fine.
Details about the original thought:
OpenOBEX uses a version-info of 5:1:4 now which translates to a soname
of 1.4.1.
(The scheme here is current : revision : age which is translated to a
soname of current-age . age . revision.)
The soname of .2.0 (ABI 2, age 0) tells to be compatible to e.g. the
soname of .1.1 (ABI 2, age 1, revisions ommited).
But that's just the theoretical side -- I can't even say if some
linker might choose librarys that liberal. Also there shouldn't be any
apps linked to ABI 2 around any more, right?
regards,
Christian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, &
iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com
_______________________________________________
Openobex-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openobex-users
