2004.07.10 17:56 "[Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Jay Berkenbilt

2004.07.11 17:32 "Re: [Tiff] unintentional ABI change between 3.5 and 3.6?", by Andrey Kiselev

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.

Unfortunately, it is incompatible with the previous libtiff policy, where the soname was release dependent. We can use the right approach after the major changes in tha library (switching to TIFF64), but for 3.7.0 I have used the -version-number libtool switch to generate a soname --- that is compatible with the libtiff binaries, compiled from old sources.

Andrey V. Kiselev
Home phone: +7 812 5274898 ICQ# 26871517