Re: Shared library versions

[Andrew Clausen]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> On Feb 22, 2001, Andrew Clausen <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > How can this be deduced from the linux version generated by libtool?
> 
> Same MAJOR number => backward-compatible changes; different MAJOR
> number => backward-incompatible changes.

And, higher minor/micro indicates "better" (more bug free, etc.?)
 
> > If you want to go the programming language method, this
> > is better (IMHO).  Of course, it's uglier, but that's because
> > the algorithm is ugly.
> 
> The amount of nesting in your proposal isn't good for textual
> descriptions.  I think you failed to follow it because you tried to
> map it to something like what you wrote, instead of just following the
> procedure one item at a time.

Well, following procedures one-at-a-time doesn't help understanding.
All personal taste of course.

> I think it seems unintuitive for you because you're trying to
> second-guess what the MAJOR and MINOR version numbers are going to
> be.  Don't!  They're totally irrelevant.



> > Well, I think MAJOR and MINOR, or *some* intuitive system is important.
> 
> Libtool's versioning scheme is based on CURRENT, REVISION and AGE, not
> MAJOR and MINOR.  CURRENT counts the number of changes
> (backward-compatible or not) in the library interface.  REVISION
> counts the number of backward-compatible changes since the last
> interface change.  AGE counts the number of backward-compatible
> interface changes since the last backward-incompatible change.

Ah.  This is much easier to understand than the description in the
libtool
manual:

CURRENT
     The most recent interface number that this library implements.  

REVISION
     The implementation number of the CURRENT interface.

AGE
     The difference between the newest and oldest interfaces that this
     library implements.  In other words, the library implements all the
     interface numbers in the range from number `CURRENT - AGE' to
     `CURRENT'.

Perhaps you (?) should replace the descriptions?

Thanks,
Andrew Clausen