apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: library versioning name
Date Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:13:56 GMT
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 06:00:20PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> rbb@apache.org writes:
> 
> > Why did we choose libapr-#.so?  Most other libraries use libapr.so.#,
> > which allows you to continue to do -lapr.  Is there a reason we chose to
> > do something different???
> 
> Subversion switched to naming our many libraries "libsvn_foo-1.so"
> last June, based on this rationale:
> 
>     http://www106.pair.com/rhp/parallel.html
> 
> I suspect that gstein may have spread the same gospel to APR
> recently.  :-)

Yes. APR is all about being a library, so supporting parallel installations
is practically mandatory. Take a look at Berkeley DB as a great example. I
have db1, db2, db-3.1, db-3.2, and db-4.0 on my machine. My applications can
choose the particular version that they require. The .so.# does not provide
for that.

Similar issues arise for selecting the header files.

I've got a sneaky feeling we may need to do more with the *-config scripts,
but I'm not yet sure there. May need to write Havoc to get his feedback.

Cheers,
-g

p.s. I suspect the Windows DLLs ought to get similarly renamed so they can
avoid future DLL hell, too.

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message