On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:09:33PM -0500, Brad wrote: > On Tuesday 18 January 2011 19:09:08 Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:57:55PM +0100, Matthias Kilian wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:06:13AM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > > > > The version you're using in your port is even wrong. A shared library > > > > > must have the name libFOO.so.major.minor. I've fixed this (and set > > > > > the version to 1.0). Also some cleanups (less patches, allow for > > > > > orverriding CC, CXX, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS etc.). > > > > > > > > Ok, sorry. It was utterly stupid to follow the FreeBSD port there. :/ > > > > But I think we should stick closer to what the authors originally > > > > intended, and use $(VERSION_MAJOR).$(VERSION_MINOR) for the library > > > > name; the same thing is passed to -soname. > > > > > > Sure, you can do this for a new port (like Irrlicht) if you like. > > > But version numbers vill very soon diverge between with a projects > > > version number and the shared library version number. > > > > > > - Many projects treat version nimbers (for both the project *and* > > > shared librararies) based on policy, not on compatility. > > > > > > - We ports people don't trust upstream on shared library versions, > > > and there's a good reason for it. We've seen so many upstream > > > minor bumps which contained ABI and API breakage that we prefer > > > to decide ourselves on version numbers of shared libs. Yes, that > > > means that you will have to read the diffs for any update of > > > Irrlicht and to check wether they missed a major bump. > > > > > > > > > Really, I had this fun with poppler (IIRC), where ABI changes > > > happened without major bumps from upstream. > > > > > > Advice of the day: sheared library version numbers are no coupled > > > in any way to the projects version numbers. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > Kili > > > > Hi, > > thanks for the advice. What made me choose to follow the upstream > > versioning scheme was the fact that by passing 1.7 to -soname, upstream > > seemed indicate that major API changes are only due for ‘minor’ > > releases. Judging from the changelog, it seems to be true that the third > > digit indicates bugfix-only (well, almost …) releases, so the shlib > > version suggested in the Makefile reflects that accurately. > > > > So, I’d just leave it alone for now, and if they really do make changes > > to the API in a ‘bugfix-only’ release, we can still do our own bump if > > it’s needed. > > Remove using -soname for linking shared libs with OpenBSD.
Okay. I’ll resubmit the port after the freeze. :) > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > >
