Re: [LAD] library soname, was Re: Rubber Band Library v3.0.0 released
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:52:03PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote: > This implies that if you add a function, you need not change the soname. In this case you didn't just add a function, but a completely new and improved algorithm. That's reason enough to increment the major version, even if only for 'marketing'. And more so if you also offer a commercial license. Ciao, -- FA ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] library soname, was Re: Rubber Band Library v3.0.0 released
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022, at 15:26, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > In this case you didn't just add a function, but a completely new and > improved algorithm. That's reason enough to increment the major version, > even if only for 'marketing'. And more so if you also offer a commercial > license. I guess you're right (and thank you also for the kind words earlier on this list by the way!) It hadn't really occurred to me to think of the soname as marketing, but an increment does indicate novelty to humans as well as the machine. I am perhaps too invested in backward compatibility as the arbiter for this. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] library soname, was Re: Rubber Band Library v3.0.0 released
On 7/28/22 15:52, Chris Cannam wrote: > > The version in the .pc file is written in at install time, Except, it isn't. $PREFIX/lib/pkgconfig/rubberband.pc here has Version: 1.8.2 for rubberband v3.0.0 the .pc.in file likely needs a placeholder %VERSION% so that it is replaced at install time. > The ABI has been at 2.something since version 1.2, Yeah that's fine. I was just surprised to see the age being zero. http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html -- robin OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] library soname, was Re: Rubber Band Library v3.0.0 released
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022, at 17:06, Robin Gareus wrote: > On 7/28/22 15:52, Chris Cannam wrote: >> >> The version in the .pc file is written in at install time, > > Except, it isn't. $PREFIX/lib/pkgconfig/rubberband.pc here has Version: > 1.8.2 for rubberband v3.0.0 Oops. How are you installing? If I use e.g. "meson build && ninja -C build && ninja -C build install" here I get a copy that does have the right version in it. I haven't looked too closely at how it does that though. Since it appears to work equally well with %VERSION% in the .in file, and it's obviously not great to have a wrong literal value in there, I'll make that change. >> The ABI has been at 2.something since version 1.2, > > Yeah that's fine. I was just surprised to see the age being zero. > > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html That page just makes my head spin a little faster if anything! It seems rather libtool-specific and doesn't indicate how current:revision:age maps on to the installed library suffix. Is "current" the soname number, "revision" the minor number, and "age" the point number, as I would naively read it? If so, then it appears to be saying that merely adding a function *should* result in incrementing the soname: "If any interfaces have been added, removed, or changed since the last update, increment current, and set revision to 0" where "current" is the soname, right? As I read it, it seems to be saying that if the current version is (say) 2.1.7, then a backward-compatible addition should result in an updated version 3.0.8 whereas an incompatible change should result in 3.0.0. I'm not sure I understand the logic regardless of the explanation in the page. I don't recall having ever read quite that method before. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
