[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: totally confused by versioning system of libtool...

From: Bill Northcott
Subject: Re: totally confused by versioning system of libtool...
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 13:07:40 +1000

On 14/05/2005, at 3:45 AM, Ed Hartnett wrote:
But I don't understand why it's not 0.5.0 and 0.6.0. That is, wouldn't
it be a case of incrementing the minor version number, the middle

If libexample 0.0.6 is merely a bug fix, it is usually customary to only updated the least significant number in the version string. Customarily, however, only the very first number is ever used for runtime linking (so libexample 0.0.0, libexample 0.0.1, and libexample 0.1.0 would all replace each other, but libexample 0.1.0 and libexample 1.0.0 could be installed
in parallel).

MacOS X/Darwin regards both major and minor version numbers as significant. Also it stores two library versions in each linked executable file the 'current-version' which is the one linked against and the 'compatibility-version' which is the oldest which will support the executable (possibly with reduced functionality. Similarly libraries export their current version and the oldest API which they support.

How should libtool versioning be used so as to support both the MacOS X/Darwin scheme and the Linux ELF way of doing things? Is this possible, or should one write specific makefile routines to adjust version numbers at install time?

Bill Northcott

reply via email to

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