[haiku-commits] Re: r35324 - in haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu: . source/common source/data source/i18n source/stubdata
- From: Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:25:15 +0100
On 2010-01-28 at 06:37:02 [+0100], Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-28 at 00:14:50 [+0100], zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Author: zooey
> > Date: 2010-01-28 00:14:50 +0100 (Thu, 28 Jan 2010)
> > New Revision: 35324
> > Changeset: http://dev.haiku-os.org/changeset/35324/haiku
> >
> > Modified:
> > haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/Jamfile
> > haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/source/common/Jamfile
> > haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/source/data/Jamfile
> > haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/source/i18n/Jamfile
> > haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/source/stubdata/Jamfile
> > Log:
> > * activated API-versioning for ICU-libs
> >
> > Modified: haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/Jamfile
> > ===================================================================
> > --- haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/Jamfile 2010-01-27 23:13:49 UTC (rev 35323)
> > +++ haiku/trunk/src/libs/icu/Jamfile 2010-01-27 23:14:50 UTC (rev 35324)
> > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
> > SubDir HAIKU_TOP src libs icu ;
> >
> > +HAIKU_ICU_API_VERSION = 4.2 ;
>
> I don't ICU's versioning policy with respect to binary compatibility, but
> just in general, do you plan to generate the respective symlinks (libfoo.so.1
> -> libfoo.so.1.2 -> libfoo.so.1) as well?
I thought about that for a while yesterday and then came to the conclusion
that it doesn't make sense to care for anything else than API-version.
So, if the release libfoo-2.3.2 implements the API-version 2.3, there will be
libfoo.so.2.3 and a link libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.2.3 (but no libfoo.so.2.3.2).
I can't see the point of any "inbetween" versions (like libfoo.so.2), as the
API is either compatible or it isn't, nor do I grok why some libs on Linux are
distributed with the full release version suffix and then come with two links
(from the basename and the api-versioned name).
Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAICS having the API-versioned name alone
would be enough, since the basename link doesn't serve any purpose once all
packages have been relinked.
cheers,
Oliver
Other related posts:
