On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:09:04PM +0000, Thierry Vignaud wrote: > Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > standard libray versioning scheme is to set soname to > > > lib<name>.<major> (library being named lib<name>.<major>.<minor> > > > on filesystem) > > > > Don't get confused by the numbers, libgimp-2.0 is the library name > > we've choosen. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just a name. > > > > > if the a branch of a library is not compatible with the previous > > > one, maintainer only has to bump its major. nothing more. > > > > That's exactly what we are doing. Nothing more. Please have a look > > at the versioning scheme I pointed you at. It does exactly what you > > are suggesting. > > but it makes packaging harder for distros. > > both debian and mandrake (and even redhat now due to gtk+-1.2 to > gtk+-2.x transition) use versionned packages for library (eg one can > install libfoo2-1.0.1 and libfoo3-1.1.9 at the same time) > > this system works great for quite a number of libraries. > > but for libraries that include their version number into their soname, > this makes packaging harder when one want to still be able to keep > several versions of the same library. This is what GTK+ does. libgtk-1.2.so.0 and libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0. GIMP does the same thing as GTK+. > since the major is not anymore unique (eg gimp-2.0.23 will provide > libgimp-2.0.so.23 with the same major as libgimp-1.3.so.23 from > gimp-1.3.23), we've to include version number into package name too. No, you misunderstand. GIMP 2.0.0 will provide libgimp-2.0.so.0.0.0. GIMP 2.0.23 will provide libgimp-2.0.so.0.0.23. ABI will be maintained for the the 2.0.x series (and possibly the 2.x series, if we decide to do that). There are no ABI guarantees for 1.3.x since it's a development series. As Sven said, we do break it. It is a development series, so you just have to deal. When it hits 2.0, that's a stable series, and the ABI will be maintained. Note that GTK+ 1.3.x bumped the major so number at every release too. -Yosh
