Re: [boost] boost dll versions

From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-15 10:05:21

Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> Neal Becker wrote:
> 
>> I think the convention on Redhat, and probably others, is to use
>> -release.
>> Just like I did with boost-1.33.0-9.srpm.  That is, vendor updates don't
>> use '.', they use '-'.
> 
> Right. But how are the changes reflected in the DSO names ? Wasn't that
> the origin of this whole thread ? There needs to be a way for packagers
> to express 'minor release with no ABI changes', but if the full range
> of three position numers ('1.33.1') is already taken by boost.org itself,
> even without *any* semantics attached, that's hard to do without confusing
> users.
> 

_If_ we could implement some process for verifying/tracking ABI
compatibility, then I think it would be sensible to set soname to e.g.,
libboost_python.so.1.33.  The first actual library conforming to that ABI
is libboost_python.so.1.33.0.  A compatible update is
libboost_python.so.1.33.1, which uses the same soname to indicate
compatibility.