Re: -lgdk -vs- -lgdk-1.1 [LONG]

[Toshio Kuratomi <badger prtr-13 ucsc edu>]

On Tue, 12 May, 1998 at 10:25:14AM +0000, Gary V Vaughan set free these words:
> Earlier, I <Gary> wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 1998 at 03:27:06PM -0400, Owen Taylor <Owen> wrote:
> Owen> The unmodified libtool scheme has the disavantage that gtk+-1.1
> Owen> would immediately have version number libgtk.so.2.0.0, and
> Owen> if we properly mantained versioning in the development branch,
> Owen> gtk+-1.2 would end up with a version number libgtk.so.10.0.0,
> Owen> or so. (gtk+-2.0, probably libgtk.so.25.0.0)
> Owen> 
> Owen> Many people would say that there is nothing wrong with
> Owen> such version numbers. It is it however, quite noticeable,
> Owen> that version numbers that don't look anything like the
> Owen> package version numbers cause considerable confusion.
> 
If you're going to munge with version numbers anyways, you might as well
"abuse" the libtool interface numbers: when you create an incompatible
version, set the libtool CURRENT back to MAJOR+1.

This violates the libtool author's wishes, but since libtool doesn't give you
any other way of achieving this....

Putting the library "release" number into the library name is the wrong way to
do this because, as Gary notes, this leads to other confusions when binary
compatible releases are made.

-Toshio
-- 
badger  \"The Difference between today and yesterday is not so much what has
@prtr-13 \ changed between then and now as what I hope to change by tomorrow."
.ucsc.edu  \~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~