Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 May 2009 20:35:02 +0400
From:      Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru>
To:        Alexander Churanov <alexanderchuranov@gmail.com>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>
Subject:   Re: devel/boost: what's proper shared library version?
Message-ID:  <20090520163502.GC18765@hades.panopticon>
In-Reply-To: <20090520161732.GB18765@hades.panopticon>
References:  <3cb459ed0905130926n32def691ycecd043f70e522fc@mail.gmail.com> <op.utv8cyet9aq2h7@localhost> <3cb459ed0905141114v17944e99had31ca4c9dee8fd7@mail.gmail.com> <op.ut04z5129aq2h7@localhost> <3cb459ed0905180414s7abc0ff8x37e9ea4a58a25f4@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0905200814x5db6d9eco9df507c7bd32e038@mail.gmail.com> <20090520161732.GB18765@hades.panopticon>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* 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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090520163502.GC18765>