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

[Richard Laager]

On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 05:58 -0400, John Bailey wrote:
> 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.

Keep in mind that we're concerned with libtool versioning. Then it's up
to libtool to deal with sonames. Other OSes might handle their
versioning differently.

This might be helpful:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Libtool-versioning.html#

Basically, since we started at 2.0.0, our interfaces correspond to minor
versions (0 = 2.0.0, 1 = 2.1.0, 2 = 2.2.0, etc.). But each release
supports all the way back to interface 0, since we didn't break
backwards compatibility. If we release 3.0.0, it'll be interface 9, but
we've stopped supporting interfaces 0 through 8.

If we ever want to release a 2.9.0 after 3.0.0, I think there's a
potential for problems, since they'd both be interface 9. So we might
want to pad lt_current for 3.0.0.

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110316/bcfac574/attachment.sig>