[fdo-internals] FW: [mapguide-internals] fdo, linux, rpm andsonames

Greg Boone greg.boone at autodesk.com
Fri May 11 16:51:05 EDT 2007

I agree that an RFC is required here. I would be happy to review and
comment on any RFC proposal by the community that would improve the FDO
build system in the areas discussed below. 



-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Mateusz
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:25 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] FW: [mapguide-internals] fdo, linux, rpm

Greg Boone wrote:
> Forwarded from MapGuide-internals....
> -----Original Message----- From:
> mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
> Traian Stanev Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:49 AM To:
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals]
> fdo, linux, rpm and sonames
> This suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. Practically all Linux 
> libraries I've dealt with have had the .so.X.X.X naming.

But this is not just a name, it's a versioning system.
AFAIK, currently, FDO uses it's own versioning scheme.
Does this proposal mean we're going to switch to libtool scheme of
current.revision.age format.

Release version is not the same as interface version, also the manual

"Never try to set the interface numbers so that they correspond to the
release number of your package. This is an abuse that only fosters
misunderstanding of the purpose of library versions. Instead, use the
`-release' flag (see section Managing release information), but be
warned that every release of your package will not be binary compatible
with any other release."

IMHO, such non-trivial change should be explained in RFC and be

Mateusz Loskot
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list