From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 20 16:35:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6CE106566C for ; Wed, 20 May 2009 16:35:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) Received: from smtp.timeweb.ru (smtp.timeweb.ru [217.170.79.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A948FC19 for ; Wed, 20 May 2009 16:35:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) Received: from [213.148.20.85] (helo=hive.panopticon) by smtp.timeweb.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M6ol2-00081q-5e; Wed, 20 May 2009 20:35:08 +0400 Received: from hades.panopticon (hades.panopticon [192.168.0.32]) by hive.panopticon (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2A4B84D; Wed, 20 May 2009 20:35:05 +0400 (MSD) Received: by hades.panopticon (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A5355108839; Wed, 20 May 2009 20:35:02 +0400 (MSD) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 20:35:02 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov To: Alexander Churanov Message-ID: <20090520163502.GC18765@hades.panopticon> References: <3cb459ed0905130926n32def691ycecd043f70e522fc@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0905141114v17944e99had31ca4c9dee8fd7@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0905180414s7abc0ff8x37e9ea4a58a25f4@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0905200814x5db6d9eco9df507c7bd32e038@mail.gmail.com> <20090520161732.GB18765@hades.panopticon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090520161732.GB18765@hades.panopticon> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Jeremy Messenger Subject: Re: devel/boost: what's proper shared library version? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:35:07 -0000 * Dmitry Marakasov (amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) wrote: A small addendum: > As I understand, that's .so.1.39 vs .so.139 vs .so.5 .so.139 may be not futureproof as there were (and may be later) 3-component versions i.e. 1.34.1. Also, given that boost seem to update fairy regularily, many (pretty huge) ports depend on it and there were no ABI breakages during last updates, I'd vote for only bumping soversion if it's known to break ABI (on major releases or post factum if the breakage is reported). This way the .so.5 scheme seems to be most suitable, as soversion does not correllate with boost version. If on some point we discover that every update needs soversion bump, we can always switch to .so.1.39 or whatever, anyway. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru