[gdal-dev] libtool numbering policy

[Greg Troxel]

Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com> writes:

> A ticket ( https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/6542 ) has been raised about 
> libtool SONAME having not changed between GDAL 2.0.X and GDAL 2.1.0 due to 
> incrementing both LIBGDAL_CURRENT and LIBGDAL_AGE .
> This was raised also in https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4543
>
> Our, more or less implicit, policy up to now was to take just into account the 
> C ABI, and not the C++ one. Any opinion if we should change it to take into 
> account the C++ ABI as well ?

I can see the point, but the other half of the situation is that
packages do (or should) make a significant effort not to have ABI
changes.  With C ABIs, that seems to work pretty well.   I have the
impression that C++ ABIs are much more unstable, and they also seem to
change in practice when changing compilers.  So I am left wondering how
much stability benefit there really is for C++ by adopting such a
change.

Would you expect a C++ ABI change every release?  Or is that an
occasional thing?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20160614/2e965023/attachment.sig>