Re: [gnome-db] Libgda modifications in CVS HEAD

["Gustavo R. Montesino" <grmontesino ig com br>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:45:22PM +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 15:17 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 00:00 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 16:59 -0600, Daniel Espinosa wrote:
> > > > This change is API incompatible with the last version
> > > > of LibGDA, then is it correct for a version 1.x?
> > > > 
> > > no, API changes are not allowed in the 1.2 series. We might probably
> > > high the version number to 2.0 for that version
> > 
> > So this new libgda version will be parllel-installable with libgda-1.2.
> > 
> > So it needs a new pc file, and a different name for the libarary. Do you
> > plan to make those changes?
> > 
> > Unfortunately, you already use "2" in the library name, 
> > /opt/gnome210/lib/libgda-2.so
> > so you might want to choose a different even number for this new version
> > to avoid confusion.
> > 
> hmm, right. What about calling the lib libgda-2-0.so or something, and
> thus make it match with the libgda version number?
> 
> Or any other idea? Having libgda-2.0.pc and libgda-3.so might be a bit
> confusing.

Actually, I'm trying to make 1.0 and 1.2 parallel-installable on Debian,
and it doesn't seems so hard. It would be hand to have a configure
switch to choose a provider dir though (doing that is somewhere on my
TODO, but time...). I'm also not sure about how to handle configuration
and gconf yet. 

libgdasql also have the same soname (0) on 1.0 and 1.2 (BTW, they really
have the same API? It looks like it on surface, but I've made only
simple tests).

Anyway, Debian way of versioning things would be to use libgda2-soname
(on package names, the name of files remain unchanged - so the dev 
packages do conflict between themselves); maybe something like that can 
be a good solution. Other than that, personally i think that libgda3 
would be better.

-- 
Gustavo R. Montesino
Debian Brasil - http://www.debianbrasil.org/