Re: Interface range compatibility?

[Phillip Susi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/4/2013 5:39 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> The libfoo.so.1.0.0 symlink isn't there because it will never be
> used, at least not if you follow the rules. It is not allowed to
> simply reset age to zero. You have to also bump interface in that
> case.

Right, I did that.  That then gets you libfoo.so.1.0.0, but an
application linked against the previous dual interface library won't
use this new one.

> Whenever two versions of a library are incompatible, you need to
> install both to support both "old" and "new" application. When you
> remove support for interface 0, you make an incompatible change
> which gets you from "interface 1, age 1" to "interface 2, ago 0".
> I.e. "interface 1, age 0" is not a valid successor to "interface 1,
> age 1".

Ahh, I was thinking that you could use the age for a transitional
period of having the library support both the old and new interface,
but I guess it's use is more for indicating support for new, augmented
features, on top of the same old base interface.  In other words, you
increment it when adding to the interface in a backward compatible way.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSTsFWAAoJEJrBOlT6nu756ZQH+wazU+k3ugxcVASQuI9xVMYe
zE5PT5ofKwZAViCSQBsElunatcHagRW4cMUZ8jPMNxu2PgzHMWXQSI8JbLpuCMr2
klQCZpiPIKmaIfdFLPfDTfRiPwLJAu0p8MNPh07Uxtuftz5+MtDG1UBxwp//jmd8
CgmhvsbviHsd3wlW0fxKsYK6/TlAREfVcDEQV9lVt5jfF/0ggz3WpRnjfnVjx+Sp
hVMy9cEbFfGwMs0vWB3Xd0zf/krpRJ5iawhrRHcvU1hsO8NyZvcCA4c0HOoIweys
44zU+U3VEwVWIKNRkczh7+J/pZ1dHnO2Tc8aKjFu6iKBEOX56QB7qv0BNje38pk=
=sqT/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----