Adding experimental parts to a KF5 library
ivan.cukic at kde.org
Tue Jan 13 07:08:58 GMT 2015
I do agree that is would be a proper way to handle it. The only
problem I see with it is that the point is actually not to provide
binary compatibility, nor proper handling of BIC.
At least in the case I have. Namely, the point is for the library to
be used *only* for things that are in development - because projects
that wish to use it have a longer release cycles than the frameworks.
But, on the other hand, if one of those projects were to release a
stable version against a 0.x version of the library, it would need BIC
On 13 January 2015 at 03:27, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
> Ivan Čukić wrote:
>> - 0 soversion to show that the library has no stable ABI.
> I'd actually set both the soname and the fully-versioned name to
> libfoo.so.0.1, then if you change something binary-incompatibly,
> libfoo.so.0.2, etc. (or use libfoo.so.0.1 etc. as the soname and something
> like libfoo.so.0.1.0.0 as the fully-versioned name, if you really want to
> track binary-compatible changes too). Unlike libtool, CMake easily allows
> you to use such versioning, and it's really the right way to handle it. It
> allows both clearly identifying the library as preliminary (whereas
> libfoo.so.0 is also very commonly used for the first stable-ABI version of a
> library) and tracking binary incompatible changes in a sane way (without
> losing the zero major version).
> Kevin Kofler
While you were hanging yourself on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun
More information about the kde-core-devel