[csw-maintainers] An idea for a shared libraries policy

Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de
Thu Oct 7 16:14:32 CEST 2010

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
> <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> > (Phil wrote)
> >> I think you might do well to go with my original theory, slightly expanded:
> >>
> >> Unless you find a shared object, of filename "lib*.so*", AND it has a
> >> "SONAME", AND that name has a double-numeric rev  (eg:
> >> libfoo.so.#.#), then you should just leave it alone.
> >
> > I understand and I agree with the first two criteria: It makes sense
> > to separate the library out, if it is named lib*.so*, and has a
> > SONAME.  I don't get the bit with the double-numeric versions.  What
> > matters is the presence of SONAME, and the contents is a conventional
> > notation, why would any numbers matter?
> >
> (I did explain this previously, but I'll repeat myself for this case)
> It has been my experience that libraries with only a single digit
> signifier in the SONAME, tend to respect backward compatibility, and
> the value of a stable API.

This is all outdated technology. library versioning is nowerdays done via 
mapfiles. This allows even to link against an older lib at runtime than you
did at compile time iff the old lib supports the interfaces needed by a 
specific program.

Unfortunately, few OSS authors understand how to correctly deal with library 
interface versioning.


 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

More information about the maintainers mailing list