[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cmake
Subject:    Re: [CMake] How to build fully correctly versioned shared object files with cmake
From:       Alexander Neundorf <neundorf () kde ! org>
Date:       2018-08-06 20:29:21
Message-ID: 9190746.OKG0mvDWAW () linux-l7nd
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2018 M08 6, Mon 21:54:33 CEST Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am 6. August 2018 20:27:23 MESZ schrieb Philip Van Hoof 
<philip@codeminded.be>:
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > I noticed that it sometimes happens that I find a package for a shared
> > object file(s) (or DLLs, on platforms like Windows) that have a build
> > set up using cmake, that doesn't set everything that should be set.
> > 
> > Usually as packagers of various popular open source softwares correct
> > enthusiasts' attempts at understanding the sometimes bizarre
> > complexities of for example autotools, but (although it's all less
> > complicated) also cmake, it ends up somewhat right. Somewhat. I noticed
> > that especially in corporate world, things tend to go spectacularly
> > wrong. Almost without exception.
> > 
> > In particular am I concerned about ABI versioning of shared object
> > files so that they are easy to package and distribute by various
> > operating systems (like, among others, Linux distributions). But also
> > API versioning of development files (compiler header files and pkg-
> > config) and installing to the right installation paths.
> > 
> > I wanted to invite the community to scrutinize some equivalent examples
> > that I made for autotools (with libtool), qmake, cmake and meson.
> > 
> > https://github.com/pvanhoof/dir-examples/
> > 
> > In particular I wanted to invite the cmake community to take a look at
> > this example:
> > 
> > https://github.com/pvanhoof/dir-examples/tree/master/cmake-example
> > 
> > The idea is that the examples are as correct as possible. That means
> > the examples should simple and educational. Easing (some amount) of
> > platform independence (ie. supporting Windows) and packaging.
> 
> Is there ANY reason to use libtool library versioning? It might surprise
> people but it really is not any kind of standard.
> 
> Just change the SOVERSION when you make incompatible ABI changes and a
> normal library VERSION. There's really not more to it, especially nothing
> like the sick results that libtool produces, sometimes.

I agree.
I would recommend
Major version  = SO version, increase it if you break ABI compatibility
Minor version: increase it if you add ABI compatible features
Patch version: increase it for bug fix releases.

Alex

-- 

Powered by www.kitware.com

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: \
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information \
on each offering, please visit:

CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at \
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
https://cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]