[Kde-imaging] libkexiv2: breaks backward compatitiliby? WAS: extragear/libs/libkexiv2

[Gilles Caulier]

2007/5/9, Achim Bohnet <ach at mpe.mpg.de>:
>
> On Wednesday, 9. May 2007, Gilles Caulier wrote:
> > 2007/5/9, Achim Bohnet <ach at mpe.mpg.de>:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, 9. May 2007, Angelo Naselli wrote:
> > > > Alle mercoledì 9 maggio 2007, Colin Guthrie ha scritto:
> > > > > Angelo Naselli wrote:
> > > > > > Alle martedì 8 maggio 2007, Colin Guthrie ha scritto:
> > > > > >> Angelo Naselli wrote:
> > > > > >>> Col can you test the binary compatibility in cooker? I mean
> IIRC
> > > there
> > > > > >>> was 0.1.2 in it now you upgraded to 0.1.4 digikam should start
> > > correctly.
> > > > > >> Yeah I tested it prior to committing/submitting it and it seems
> to
> > > be
> > > > > >> fine, so I guess you are right in that it was the 0.1.1 ->
> 0.1.2that
> > > > > >> broke things.  The version I updated in cooker was indeed 0.1.2
> .
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Didn't try to do anything complex in dk but nothing jumped out
> at
> > > me.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Col
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Col could you please test this one against 0.1.2?
> > > > > >
> http://www.linux.it/~anaselli/kipi-plugins/libkexiv2-0.1.5.tar.bz2
> > > > >
> > > > > It creates a different automatic provides:
> > > > >
> > > > > The older one (0.1.4) generates:
> > > > > libkexiv2.so.0()(64bit)
> > > > >
> > > > > and the 0.1.5 generates a provide of:
> > > > > libkexiv2.so.1()(64bit)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So indeed the major of the library has changed.
> > > > hmm, not the major, but the revision.
> > > > > I can bump the major and it should in theory co-install with the
> older
> > > > > version, but I'll still get conflicts on the file:
> > > > > /usr/lib64/libkexiv2.la
> > > > > (is this even needed? - I've had good success with just deleting
> them
> > > in
> > > > > the past, but I've also been stung with some KDE apps needing
> them!)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regardless it will mean we can rebuild the dependant apps and
> > > everything
> > > > > will eventually work. Is this the desired effect?
> > > > Well it should have been done after liblexiv2 0.1.1 (e.g. for 0.1.2
> ).
> > > > But if i understood well the rule
> > > > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Versioning
> > > > 2:1:1 should mean revision is 2, age is 1
> > > > so it should be back compatible with libkexiv (2-1=1) 1:X:X e.g. >
> > > libkexiv2 0.1.2
> > > > I would have expected digikam working with the new library.
> > > >
> > > > I'm comfused... and a bit tired to investigate :/
> > >
> > > Hi Angelo,
> > >
> > > thx for libkexiv2 0.1.5  with libkexiv2.so.1.   Now digikam can still
> use
> > > 0.1.1
> > > with libkexiv2.so.0.
> > >
> > > I've tried rebuilding digikam 0.9.1 with likexiv2 0.1.5 and this also
> > > works fine.
> > >
> > > At least in kubuntu only digikam and digikamimageplugins depend on
> > > libkexiv2
> > > and those two are merged in 0.9.1.  PUh, that's easy ;)
> >
> >
> > Achim, digiKam & DigikamImagePluguins have been merged with 0.9.2release,
> > not 0.9.1 (:=)))
>
> Everything I write has to be read with 90 % fuzzy mode turned on ;)


Ah, I'm not alone to use this mode as well (:=)))...

Gilles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-imaging/attachments/20070509/6e19fb6c/attachment-0001.html