Re: Shared Library version numbers

[Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.phys.columbia.edu>]

On 12 May 1998 09:14:41 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@weber.uni-paderborn.de> writes:
>
>> Hardcoding the version number in the Makefile with libdb.so-version=
>> is also not possible, because we have different numbers on ix86 and
>> alpha.
>> A solution would be nice, so that Distributors could add the old
>> libdb and libnss_* modules from glibc 2.0 to glibc 2.1 for
>> compatibility reasons. The NSS modules are necessary for static linked
>> programs like rpm.
>> 
>> Any Ideas ? Or should I create more then one add-on, with the only 
>> difference in the various version numbers for different platforms ?
>
>This is exactly the problem why I haven't done it myself.  I don't see
>a possibility but providing the rules to generate the library in the
>Makefile and not relying on the rules from the Makerules file etc.

I don't know how hard this would be, but what about making
shlib-versions subdirectory specific?  i.e. each subdir would have a
shlib-versions and a generated soversions.mk that pertained only to
the libraries it built.  The top level would just have libc.so.  Then
db can build libdb.so.2 and db2 can build libdb.so.3.

I can try to implement this but not till next week.

zw