Re: Suggestions for API/ABI Process

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 16:02 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
[snip]
> Also, I think it should be expected that when an interface changes in
> an incompatible way, this should be reflected in the library versioning.
> Looking at libgnomeprint 2.0 and 2.2, one might think that they should
> be ABI compatible since it seems only the minor number changed.  In
> the libgnomeprint example, they added a "-2" to the end of the library
> name.  The glib/GTK+ libraries never use such a suffix to indicate ABI
> change, instead they always bump the major version number.  It seems
> like different modules are doing things in ad-hoc ways.  What is
> the best pratice here that GNOME libraries should be following?  I
> think the Release Team should define this.

Why does it matter? What is the advantage? Is it worth losing the
advantage of most GNOME 2 libraries being 2.something?

libgtk-1.2.so is clearly different to libgtk-2.0.so
and
libgnomprint-2.so is clearly different to libgnomeprint-2.2.so

No massaging of those numbers, other than having the same names, will
make those libraries ABI compatible. They are different libraries.

[snip]
-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com