Sub-library version numbers

[aleXXX]

On Saturday 08 June 2002 15:11, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Friday 07 June 2002 11:57, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> > On Fre, 07 Jun 2002, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > > Since libraries with the same major number are supposed to be backwards
> > > compatible this is not a problem.
> >
> > It is a problem, because it depends now on the installation order. Usual
> > RPMs produce the symlinks in their postinstall script to allow several
> > versions of the lib to be installed (well, some others do not, but those
> > are broken anyway).
> >
> > This means the correct functioning depends on the order of installation.
> > Given that people start to experiment with their installation as sonn as
> > something doesn't work, this is quite likely to be a problem.

And I really think that having different version numbers for different libs 
with different features and different bugs are a good thing, otherwise you 
have no chance to keep the various versions of the libs apart.

> How is this different from any other project? I cant imagine any
> distributions where this turns into a problem, since they need to resolve
> the issue anyway for all other packages containing libraries.
> KDE libraries are the only ones I know that doesnt use proper library
> versions.
>
> Seems to me like unfounded fear.

I think so too.
Every other lib increases its version number with increasing version.
Once somebody had a problem and KDE didn't start. Well, it wasn't easy to 
find out which version of KDE was installed at all, since it might be helpful 
to know whether e.g. 2.0.0 or 2.2.2 was installed on this box.

Bye
Alex