Dear Alexei, Alexei Sheplyakov wrote:
CL_CURRENT=5 -CL_REVISION=1 +CL_REVISION=2 CL_AGE=0
I think this version info is incorrect. It should be
CL_CURRENT=6 # new functions were added CL_REVISION=0 CL_AGE=1 # but still it's binary compatible with CLN 1.2.0
Really?!? Let's read what the libtool documentation has to say about its versioning system. Hmm, yes, I see... Let's assume that in CLN-1.2.3 functions are removed. This would become: CL_CURRENT=7 CL_REVISION=0 CL_AGE=0 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? So far, my practice has been to try to care that later libraries with soname libcln.so.x are compatible with earlier ones with same soname and to increment soname whenever compatibility breaks. From a software distribution point of view (wearing my Debian hat), this should be all that matters. 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. I'm releaseing it now the way it is. Don't hesitate to tell if you think that this way of doing versions is fundamentally wrong. Cheers -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>