[Ecls-list] Bug#486376: Bug#486376: ecl: /usr/lib/libecl.so doesn't provide a SONAME

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:38:13 +0200, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
> > Last change in CVS ( 2008/09/09 )
> >
> >  - We switch to an Ubuntu-like versioning system, based on
> $(year).$(month).x
> >    where "x" is 0 for a release or any higher number for a patched
> version.
>
> I'll play the Devil's advocate here, sorry: does this mean that 0.1.0
> will be SONAME-compatible with 0.1.1?


The SONAME only uses the first two numbers. It means I reserve the
possibility to have minor bugs fixed and leave that to that last number.
However, you will not see that I use something != *.*.0 in a release. Also,
what is definitely true is that two libraries with different major (i.e.
first) or minor (i.e. second) release numbers are not guaranteed to be
binary compatible.

>
> >  - In Unix-type systems, ECL now installs with a "soname" and using
> versioned
> >    directory names, such as /usr/lib/ecl-8.9.0, /usr/lib/libecl.so.8.9,
> etc
>
> Is a new release planned soon or should I package today's CVS snapshot
> to close this bug?


One or two weeks. Depends on another bug being closed and also how life
develops.



> CLISP provides a similar situation, but we (i.e. Debian) decided to ship
> only one version.  What's your advice here?


I do not think it is politically correct to ask the maintainer of one
implementation how the packaging of a different one should go, so please
excuse if I do not answer that question.

Juanjo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20080910/cd90f22d/attachment.html>