library versioning

[Brian J. Tarricone]

Jeff Franks wrote:

> Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> i have an idea... not sure if it's worth the work, but i thought i'd 
>> put it out there.  in light of all the problems with people 
>> upgrading, and trying to use parallel stable and CVS, do we perhaps 
>> want to start versioning the filenames of our libs a bit better?
>>
>> ideally, we'd be doing something like "libxfcegui-4.3.so", 
>> "libxfceutil-4.3.so", etc. etc.  note that i took the "4" out of the 
>> library names altogether, which i guess might be a bit lame to do at 
>> this point, so we'd stick with the lameness of "libxfcegui4-4.3.so" 
>> and "libxfce4util-4.3.so", etc.  or perhaps, since we're versioning 
>> the .pc files as, e.g., "libxfcegui4-1.0.pc", we could just increment 
>> the minor on that guy, and use that in the filename versioning as 
>> well.  so we'd have, for the current CVS, libxfcegui4-1.3.pc and 
>> libxfcegui4-1.3.so.  or something like that.
>>
>> benefits:
>> 1) no more complaints about "undefined: xfce_builtin_license_GPL" and 
>> the like.
>> 2) no more complaints from people wanting to install both in parallel 
>> (presumably, to different prefixes: i'm not advocating putting minor 
>> version suffixes on the binaries too).
>> 3) easier for us devs to have 4.2 and stable on our machines for 
>> patching and bugfixing and testing and whatnot.
>>
> So Brian, getting back to your original email, has all the generated 
> talk resulted in anything being decided, yet?

unsurprisingly, no ^_~.  i think the only thing that matters is - if we 
remember to bump the library major version this time, will that solve 
all the problems?  if so, then let's just do that.

    -brian