pidgin.next.major: dbaa022b: We want libpurple.so.1, not libpurple.so...

[John Bailey]

On 03/16/2011 03:31 AM, Richard Laager wrote:
>> We want libpurple.so.1, not libpurple.so.9.
> 
> Why do we "want" any particular soname?
> 
> Have you read this page:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html
> 
> Richard

This whole soname crap really doesn't make any sense.  I don't see why we should
be skipping all the way from 0 to 9 when this is the *first*
backward-incompatible change.  It can be changed back, though.  If we do that, I
guarantee we're going to get questions from people like the Debian packagers
wanting to know why we changed our soname from libpurple.so.0 to libpurple.so.9.

John

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110316/878f722c/attachment.sig>