Re: totally confused by versioning system of libtool...

[Bill Northcott]

On 15/05/2005, at 12:24 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > It what sense do you think 'it works fine'?  How does a single   
> > libtool version string get translated into the two possibly  
> > different  version strings required by MacOS X?
>
> I don't follow what you think is wrong. Libtool's versioning system  
> uses the CURRENT, AGE and REVISION system described in the libtool  
> documentation.
>
> Does reading this thread help?
> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/1348>

That link was helpful, but I think incorrect.  In one of the messages  
you have

> Now lets release a new libfoo 4:0:2
> Current system:
> libfoo.dylib -> libfoo.2.2.0.dylib
> libfoo.2.dylib -> libfoo.2.2.0.dylib
> libfoo.2.2.0.dylib
> install_name libfoo.2.dylib compatibility_version 5 current_version  
> 5.0
> Proposed :
> libfoo.dylib -> libfoo.2.dylib
> libfoo.2.dylib
> same encoded information.
IMHO this should be:
Now lets release a new libfoo 4:15:2
libfoo.dylib -> libfoo.2.dylib  (for the benefit of configure scripts  
only)
libfoo.2.dylib
install_name libfoo.2.dylib compatibility_version 3.0.0  
current_version 5.0.15

Possibly, the last line could equally be:
install_name libfoo.2.dylib compatibility_version 3.0.0  
current_version 3.2.15
That would have the same effect on Darwin, if applied consistently.

If you set compatibility_version to 5, which is what seems to be  
happening now, then something linked against the library built with  
libtool version 3:10:1 will fail to link at runtime, even thought the  
libtool version implies it is compatible.

I think your 2003 suggestion to eliminate libfoo.x.x.x.dylib is  
correct.  Creating that just results in unnecessary duplication.

Bill Northcott