Re: Setting shared lib version not functioning

[John Calcote]

On 5/6/2009 3:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> John Calcote<address@hidden>  writes:
>
>    
> > One thing that bothers me a little is that we never really did solve
> > Gerald's original problem. He said his library was created just fine when
> > he was passing 2:0:0, but when he switched to 2:0:1, it created a library
> > with a version number of 1:1:0. Now, why would Libtool do this? Granted,
> > he didn't really want 2:0:1, but 2:0:1 isn't a bogus triplet, either. So
> > why did Libtool convert it to 1:1:0?
> >      
>
> For the linux way of library versioning the library suffix is computed
> as (current-age).age.revision, thus 2:0:1 maps to 1.1.0.  A libtool
> version of 1:1:0 whould map to 1.0.1.
>    
Thanks Andreas. This is excellent information, but I'd like to 
understand why this is so. Can you point me to a reference that 
describes this transformation, and perhaps it's rationale?

Thanks in advance,
John