Regarding (bug "versioning-of-extensions")

Regarding (bug "versioning-of-extensions")

[Rob Browning]

As our temporary fix for 1.6, it looks like it's going to be easy to
switch to adding the INTERFACE number to the end of the lib, i.e.

  libguilesrfi-srfi-13-14_15.so.X.Y.Z

and for now I'm using an underscore to separate out the version number
from the library name[1].

However, as you may or may not know, when you specify the three
library versioning numbers to libtool, you're *not* specifying the
major.minor.revision numbers for the lib -- libtool computes those
from what you give it based on its versioning semantics.

For example, right now we have an INTERFACE_VERSION for guile-readline
of 15 and an INTERFACE_AGE of 1 in
guile-readline/LIBGUILEREADLINE-VERSION.  This will cause libtool to
build

  libguilereadline_15.so.14.2.0

Note the "13" rather than a "15".  So our _15 in the name won't
actually match the real major number of the lib.  I'm not sure this
really matters, since all we really need is for the names of these
libs to be unique and to not match either guile 1.3.4 or 1.4's names
or guile 1.8 and above's, but I thought I'd point it out in case
someone else sees a problem.

Thanks

[1] for now -- I may need to change this since it might make packaging
guile 1.6 for Debian a little harder than necessary

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Regarding (bug "versioning-of-extensions")

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> and for now I'm using an underscore to separate out the version
> number from the library name[1].

Unless there are objections, I think I'm going to leave the number
alone, i.e. use 15, even though due to AGE the actual lib major
version might be smaller, for example 13, but I'll change the naming
scheme like this

  libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-lt15

The lt15 will reflect the libtool interface, and should make it clear
that something unusual is going on.  We'll also have details in NEWS,
and perhaps the info files.  Since these ltFOO versions will only
exist for 1.6, ugly names aren't such a big deal -- they should be
going away fairly soon.

Thanks

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Regarding (bug "versioning-of-extensions")

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Unless there are objections, I think I'm going to leave the number
> alone, i.e. use 15, even though due to AGE the actual lib major
> version might be smaller, for example 13, but I'll change the naming
> scheme like this
>
>   libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-lt15

Actually, I decided to go with the most explicit

  libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-lt-15-0-2.so.X.Y.Z

This means that people won't have to guess which number the "lt"
number is -- it's just the actual libtool var numbers
CURRENT-REVISION-AGE (which are the only ones we can determine
programatically), and it also means that if someone wanted to, they
could, given a set of libfoo libs named this way, apply the same
algorithm that libtool uses to figure out which, if any, satisfies a
given interface -- i.e. doesn't hurt, might help :>

As before, let me know if you see a problem.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Regarding (bug "versioning-of-extensions")

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:

> Actually, I decided to go with the most explicit
>
>   libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-lt-15-0-2.so.X.Y.Z

OK, I've got all this fixed up here, and I'll commit soon (which will
mean this 1.6 RC bug, at least is no longer RC), but first I need to
fix up the autoconf 2.53 issues that Dale sent a patch for.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel