Re: libtool versioning and ABI

[Michel Briand]

Sorry for my last post : too quick answer :))

Charles Wilson <address@hidden> - Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:45:58
-0400

>Michel Briand wrote:
>
>> Thank you, but, sorry, I'm not convinced. Remember what I said a
>> few mails ago: that's all of interface contract = same concept as
>> your...
>> 
>> Does anyone uses "10" or "16" to refer to their ABI ? Hum... So those
>> numbers have to be managed somewhere...
>
>Yes.  Here are a few libraries on my linux box:
>
>libalsa2-1.0.15-0.rc1.4mdv2008.0      ABI=2, pkgver=1.0.15
>libamarok0-scripts-1.4.7-9mdv2008.0   ABI=0, pkgver=1.4.7
>libamrnb2-6.1.0.3-1plf2008.0          ABI=2, pkgver=6.1.0.3
>libao2-0.8.8-2mdv2008.0               ABI=2, pkgver=0.8.8
>libapplewm7-1.0.0-5mdv2008.0          ABI=7, pkgver=1.0.0
>libavformats51-0.4.9-3.pre1.8994.2plf2008.0
>                                      ABI=51, pkgver=0.4.9
>libavutil49-0.4.9-3.pre1.8994.2plf2008.0
>                                      ABI=49, pkgver=0.4.9
>

Please give me the way to learn those ABI number you cite.

I've looked into many OSS and found in Makefile.am only 2 cases :

- version-info 1:0:0 (the guys there didn't want to bother with
  libtool versioning apparently... ;))

- version-info with the X.Y.Z version "back crafted" to make
  the soname version read the same as X.Y.Z

Yes it's bad practice as suggested by the libtool documentation.
But whatever... it's common practice. It's not like the Bible ;)...
Practice usually prevails in software.

>Pick a number.  Increment X. Increment Y. Increment Z.  do whatever you
>want. It's NOT a technical decision.
>

Hum. I'm certain that it is :).