[sword-devel] sword library versioning and naming convention question (for packaging)

Jason Galyon jtgalyon at gmail.com
Sun Oct 26 11:10:35 MST 2008

Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Jason Galyon <jtgalyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am updating the Ubuntu sword package from 1.5.9 to the current 1.5.11.
>> However, I noticed that libsword used to be libsword.so.6 whereas now it
>> is libsword-1.5.11.so
>> This does not 'play' nicely with the shlibs versioning and dependency
>> system for most linux systems that I am aware of.  I have chatted
>> (shortly so far) with some Ubuntu packagers to help me and they had no
>> ideas.  I checked around in my lib directories and even with ones with
>> numbers before the .so, had version numbers on the end.
>> Would it be possible next release to have something like
>> libsword-1.5.so.11 or similar?
> That versioning scheme assumes that the 1.5 releases are backward
> compatible and binary replaceable, if I remember correctly.  However,
> the line of 1.5.x releases are major releases, not minor releases, and
> can include API breaking changes from time to time, so (for example),
> you almost certainly couldn't use an application built against
> libsword-1.5.8 with libsword-1.5.11 without rebuilding and probably
> changing it.
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
I intended to send an email earlier than this but as it is not appearing 
in my sent box I must have failed to do so.

Would it be possible given the current information to follow the 
convention of having libraries built with the versioning like so?


More information about the sword-devel mailing list