Re: libtool versioning

[Peter Rosin]

Den 2010-05-03 22:03 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> * Jef Driesen wrote on Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:24:09PM CEST:
> > Yes, I have read the libtool manual, but it doesn't contain much
> > info about the resulting filename. Most of the info is about the
> > c:r:a scheme for input, not the output.
>
> Yes, because the output file name is a per-system detail that you should
> not have to care about.
>
> > > > > #  1. Start with version information of `0:0:0' for each libtool library.
> > > > > #  2. Update the version information only immediately before a public
> > > > > #     release of your software. More frequent updates are unnecessary, and
> > > > > #     only guarantee that the current interface number gets larger faster.
> > > > > #  3. If the library source code has changed at all since the last update,
> > > > > #     then increment revision (`c:r:a' becomes `c:r+1:a').
> > > > > #  4. If any interfaces have been added, removed, or changed since the last
> > > > > #     update, increment current, and set revision to 0.
> > > > > #  5. If any interfaces have been added since the last public release, then
> > > > > #     increment age.
> > > > > #  6. If any interfaces have been removed since the last public release,
> > > > > #     then set age to 0.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't step #6 included "changed" as well as "removed"? If you
> > > > change the interface (for example modifying function parameters),
> > > > backwards compatibility is broken too. But only "removed" is listed
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > Well, it is listed in step 4 already.
> >
> > Sure, but if interfaces have been changed, but not removed, the
> > algorithm stops at step #4,
>
> Read the algorithm without any implicit stops in mind, and it will work.
>
> Anyway, your point is good that this is hard to understand, and we've
> addressed that in git master.

Errrm, is that really so? I tend to agree with Jef here...

The algorithm *could* be interpreted such that e.g. the interface change
"int foo(void)" -> "int foo(int)" is an interface addition of int foo(int)
and an interface remove of int foo(void), thus triggering both #5 and #6.
But in that case "changed" need not be mentioned in #4 either. So, because
"changed" is mentioned in #4, it also needs to be explicitly mentioned
in #6.

Or what am I missing?

Cheers,
Peter

--
They are in the crowd with the answer before the question.
> Why do you dislike Jeopardy?