On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Michael Schwendt <[email protected]> wrote: > Obviously, you should have talked to upstream _prior_ to inventing an > arbitrary soname. Not only is it binary incompatible with other > distributions, it is also incompatible with future releases by upstream. > Just imagine you continued with your versioning scheme and some day > in the future, when you are at libgambatte.so.4, upstream would > release the first official libgambatte.so.1.
You are right. I should have talked with upstream first. My mistake. I'll talk to them ASAP. > libgambatte.so.0.4.0 would be wrong, because the soname for > v0.4.0 and 0.4.1 would not be different. Probably you wanted to > write libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0, which would be a better choice, > which requires rebuilds each time the full version changes. Just to be sure to understand correctly, you mean: libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0 as soname libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0.4.0 symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0 libgambatte-0.4.0.so symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.0.so.0 Next release (version 0.4.1) would be: libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0 as soname libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0.4.1 symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0 libgambatte-0.4.1.so symlinks to libgambatte-0.4.1.so.0 Is it right? Is the libgambatte-0.4.x.so.0.4.x symlink needed? Thanks, Andrea.
