Re: libgnomeprint .so versioning

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 01:37:44PM -0600, Chema Celorio wrote:
> I've been trying to figure out what .so numbering to use for
> libgnomeprint. The current branches have the following numbers:
> 
> Version 1.116.x
> ---------------
> Branch:  gnome-2-0
> Library: libgnomeprint-2.so.0
> Package: libgnomeprint
> 
> Version 2.2.x.y
> ---------------
> Branch:  gnome-2-2
> Library: libgnomeprint-2-2.so.0
> Package: libgnomeprint22
> 
> 
> 
> For head (which will become gnome-2-4) I see two options:
> 
> A)
> 
> Version 2.4.x.y
> ---------------
> Branch: trunk
> Library: libgnomeprint-2-2.so.400
> Package: libgnomeprint22
> 
> The benefit of this option is that apps compiled with the gnome 2.2
> version of libgnomeprint will still continue working, the downside is
> that 
> (package) libgnomeprint22 provides (release) libgnomeprint 2.4
> and
> (relese) libgnomeprint 2.4 provides (library) libgnomeprint-2-2.so

There are any number of platform libraries at the moment with 2.0
version numberings on the library files, but (if the releases are
following the suggested numberings) vastly different release numbers.
This does not seem to be a problem.

> B)
> 
> Version 2.4.x.y
> ---------------
> Branch: trunk
> Library: libgnomeprint-2-4.so.0
> Package: libgnomeprint24
> 
> The benefit of this option is that the package, release and library name
> make sense. It also allows people to have both gnome-2-2 and gnome-2-4
> libraries installed. The downside is that apps need to be recompiled and
> users need to upgrade their libgnomeprint because the packages for the
> apps will require it.
> 
> I am leaning toward option B at this point.

Don't you really want this to be determined by your API/ABI guarantees?

Option A seems preferable to me, since it does not require recompiling,
which has been one of the goals for the 2.x series of releases. Assuming
you are not breaking API/ABI compatibility, then keep the same version
numbers. If you are breaking the ABI, then I cannot see any choice but
moving to the *24 numbering.

Malcolm

-- 
I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem.