[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Setting shared lib version not functioning

From: Gerald I. Evenden
Subject: Re: Setting shared lib version not functioning
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:40:41 -0400
User-agent: KMail/1.9.10

On Sunday 03 May 2009 1:02:54 pm Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Sunday 2009-05-03 18:58, John Calcote wrote:
> >It appears that Libtool is smart enough to detect ridiculous cases, but it
> >should probably throw an error of some sort, rather than simply generate
> >code with a different version number.
> Since libtool is "just" a linker as far as is considered here,
> it has no knowledge of whether you added, remove, or abi/api-changed
> something.
> Of course 3:0:5 is ridiculous. You cannot have a version 3 library
> that supports the last 5 AXI versions. (If it were, then it
                                           ^-- ???
> would be possible to have a minus-1, minus-2 library version,
> but that is not plausible and hence contradicts 3:0:5.

I want to thank you all for the assistance, however I still find the libtool 
manual not very illuminating.  In particular, I used section 7.3 in make my 
release number and, in particular, item 5 related to adding an interface 
since last release as causing an addition to "age."

The big problem here is the three number do not seem independent, which 
compounds the problem.  Perhaps item 3 was what should have changes but item 
5 clause was also true.

What I did to the library was add several procedures but the original 
functions were not changed nor affected.  To me that affected item 5 
or "age."  I was afraid that changing "revision" would negate previous 
linkages and necessitate redoing application linkage---which was unnecessary 
as none of the code they used was altered (as least as far as entry)

You all seem to be indicating that "age" is superfluous.

The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.
-- Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) British psychologist

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]