Hi Richard, * Richard B. Kreckel wrote on Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 11:00:01PM CEST:
Really?!? Let's read what the libtool documentation has to say about its versioning system. Hmm, yes, I see...
The net result is that soname-wise, libcln.so.7 directly follows libcln.so.5. Quite confusing. Is that really the intent? Or am I supposed to decrement CL_CURRENT again?
FWIW, I haven't looked closer at your actual issue here, but: The libtool naming scheme cannot guarantee that on all systems, the numbering is consecutive. It only guarantees that it is increasing. This doesn't matter, though: there is not incurred cost for numbers that are omitted, except for shrinking the available space of leftover numbers. Not something you need to worry about yet. ;-)
If I had done this the way libtool suggests, we would already have libcln.so.21 or so. After all, this is C++, where library interfaces are usually less stable than in C.
There's nothing wrong about libcln.so.21, though. Cheers, Ralf