Re: at-spi versioning

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

> Forcing soname numbers to make them artificially match some external
> expectation of what they should be is almost always wrong.
> 
> Going backwards on soname versions is *alway* wrong.
> 
> If you released tarballs of ati-spi that had a major of 1, and have
> since broken binary compatibility, you _must_ use a major of at
> least 2 now.

We didn't break bincompat, but somehow a .so.1 got released *and*
bundled with RH8.0.

You didn't directly answer the question, which is,
"should we release .so.1.foo now, breaking lib compat, or just ignore
the obsolete library?"

I assume you are lobbying for releasing 1.0.something now, but that will
(otherwise needlessly) break bincompat for everything built against the
.so.0 series.  Yuck.

- Bill
> 
> (The complexities of the GTK+ scheme are meant to make the soname
> somewhat human-readable, if you consider gtk+-x11-2.0.so.0.200.0.1
> human-readable. There are simpler schemes, such as the straight
> libtool scheme, that work. But trying to make your sonames match
> a simple definition of simple will just make everybody trying 
> to package your library hate your guts.)
> 
> Regards,
>                                          Owen
> 
> 
>