Dispite all the discussion about 168 and 169, I'm hopeful we can close 164-167 fairly easily.
I have an outstanding question I'd like to see answered. Joseph Kowalski wrote: > Stefan Teleman wrote: >>> What is the point of the multi-version names? >>> I think ld will bind to multi-version name. I don't think you want >>> to do this >>> on Solaris. >> >> i think ld will bind to -h'$(SONAME)' which is set in the Makefiles >> created by ./configure. in pcre's particular case, (and generally for >> open source software which is into the bad habit of using libtool), >> the SONAME is usually set to <library-name>.so.0. >> >> this can be changed in ./configure but: >> >> - it is a lot of work to change ./configure and configure.in. >> - it creates again a fork with patches which won't be accepted upstream >> - it will break 3rd party applications which still use libtool (and >> the *.la files), and which expect to find this collection of >> symlinks, and naming convention for shared libs. >> >> On the bright side of things, we got rid of the *.la files. > OK,... I'm mush less worried (SONAME), but the question still stands: > "What is the point of the multi-version name?" Is this just > "additional information to the developer"? If so, shouldn't it be > Volatile so we can change it at any time? What I forgot to say at that time, was "and add the value of SONAME to the interface table as the Uncommitted interface? My preference is to just drop the multi-versioned name, unless significant value can be suggested for it. - jek3
