setting SOVERSION to 5

[Kevin Ottens]

On Tuesday 25 February 2014 13:06:25 David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 February 2014 08:04:16 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Monday 24 February 2014 20:23:25 šumski wrote:
> > > On Monday 24 of February 2014 16:13:48 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > Shall I do this change to the frameworks?
> > > 
> > > My opinion as a fellow packager is - please don't. IMHO, now that the
> > > versioning is fully correct, it would be really weird to have soversion
> > > 5 at version 4.97.0
> > 
> > Yes I agree there.
> > 
> > Please don't. The early versioning at 5.0.0 we had for the tech preview
> > was a mistake, it's been caught and fixed, so let's keep doing things
> > properly now following proper versioning.
> 
> But, I think Jonathan is right for the SOVERSION.
> 
> Imagine you have libattica.so.4 for the kde4 version (random example, might
> not match reality).
> 
> The kf5 version should be libattica.so.5, even in alpha/beta versions.
> You don't want it to conflict with libattica.so.4 during alpha/beta phase,
> and then suddenly jump to libattica.so.5.

I still don't think that kind of conflict matters until the final is out.
 
> libattica.so.5 with a "public version number" (in headers, packages etc.) of
> 4.96.0 sounds right to me.

Looks like an extra opportunity for error when we jump from non-final to final 
and it'll have to be in sync again.

Beside I still don't see a clear motive behind that change (Jonathan hinted at 
helping with packaging but it looks like not all packagers agree).

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20140225/5c1f3da0/attachment.sig>