AWARE [SYSTEMS] Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer
AWare Systems, Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer, Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
July 2004

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2004.07.10 17:56 "unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.10 19:07 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.07.10 19:56 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.11 02:49 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Frank Warmerdam
2004.07.11 14:27 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.07.11 17:32 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.07.11 18:05 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.07.11 16:47 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.11 17:27 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.07.11 17:52 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.11 17:56 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.14 16:11 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt
2004.07.14 16:50 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Bob Friesenhahn

2004.07.11 14:27 "Re: unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Bob Friesenhahn

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> My other reaction to this is that I didn't realize the soname was actually
> tied to the library version.  My understanding was the libtool/shared library
> versions are generally now not tied directly to the public versions of 
> libraries
> but instead are otherwise meaningless numbers updated whenever needed.  This
> is the whole -version-info stuff for libtool, right?  Perhaps we haven't been
> doing it that way for libtiff and should.  That is, I think the sonames 
> should
> be decoupled from the published release numbers.

Right. Libtool's versioning rules should be strictly followed. The 
numbering on the shared library should not be based on the release 
version.

There is a problem with FreeBSD since for some reason (probably to 
deal with some past incompatiblity) its libtiff.so uses a .4 extension 
rather than .3.  Installing libtiff from the official libtiff 
distribution package renders lots of installed software unusable. 
There are likely other such cases.  I encourage libtiff to study 
existing library version usage and consider this when establishing the 
base version for the configure-based release.  Skipping ahead a couple 
of base version numbers is likely a wise idea in order to avoid 
destroying existing installs and to ensure that everything works once 
libtiff starts following library versioning rules.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen