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

["Daniel Morgan" <danielmorgan verizon net>]

I don't know Gastavo's reasons, but I can think of some.

1. Technical Support.  You may need to support multiple versions of a
software in production.
2. A binary executable program built for libgda 1.0 may or may not run on
libgda 1.2 (I'm only guessing)
3. Easier for a person to create patches for bug fixes or try out a new
version of software

-----Original Message-----
From: gnome-db-list-bounces gnome org
[mailto:gnome-db-list-bounces gnome org] On Behalf Of Murray Cumming
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 9:39 AM
To: Gustavo R. Montesino
Cc: gnome-db-list
Subject: Re: [gnome-db] Libgda modifications in CVS HEAD


On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 23:56 -0200, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote:
> 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,

Why?

> 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.
> 
-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com

_______________________________________________
gnome-db-list mailing list
gnome-db-list gnome org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list