[haiku-bugs] Re: [Haiku] #5376: Incorrect libraries name/soname
- From: "zooey" <trac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:56:31 -0000
#5376: Incorrect libraries name/soname
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: kaliber | Owner: zooey
Type: bug | Status: assigned
Priority: normal | Milestone: R1
Component: Build System | Version: R1/Development
Keywords: | Blockedby:
Platform: All | Blocking:
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Changes (by zooey):
* owner: bonefish => zooey
* status: new => assigned
Comment:
Replying to [comment:1 kaliber]:
>
> Third party libraries in haiku have incorrect sonames.
It really depends on what you mean by incorrect - as it seems, you have
compared the sonames from haiku with the ones on Linux. But the BSDs for
instance have a different soname scheme (incrementing the numeric suffic
for every release).
The soname scheme currently used in haiku simply uses the libraries name +
ABI version for the soname.
> {{{
> 1. zlib
> - there is: libz.so.1
> - should be: libz.so.1 (OK)
> 2. jpeg
> - there is: libjpeg.so.8.0
> - should be: libjpeg.so.8
It is hard to tell from their past releases, but is libjpeg 8.1 really
going to be ABI compatible with 8.0? Please tell if you've found a point
of reference for that.
Of course we could still name it libjpeg.so.8 and then name the next
release libjpeg.so.8.1 if it is not compatible. But I personally find it
pretty cumbersome to try and track ABI compatibility for libs that do not
care to document their ABI compatibility policy.
> 3. png
> - there is: libpng.so.1.2
> - should be: libpng.so.0 or even libpng12.so.0
But both libpng.so.0 and libpng12.so.0 even violate the usual soname
scheme on Linux, as their suffix doesn't state anything about ABI version
(or what do you make of '.0'?). I don't know why the authors of libpng
chose to include the release as part of the name instead of appending the
ABI version as suffix. On haiku, I'd prefer all libraries to follow the
same soname (and naming) scheme.
> 4. icu
> - there is: libicu-*.so.4.2
> - should be: libicu*.so.42
> }}}
Yeah, it could be, but why not let the soname match the ABI version of the
library?
--
Ticket URL: <http://dev.haiku-os.org/ticket/5376#comment:2>
Haiku <http://dev.haiku-os.org>
Haiku - the operating system.
Other related posts:
