[Flac-dev] liboggflac1 soname

[Josh Coalson]

OK, I'm coming to this a little late (been sick) but I'll try
to answer all in one mail:

On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 08:31:47PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > liboggflac1 did not change the soname (better check this, it
> might require a
> > soname change, check the seekable ogg-flac support stuff).
> 
> CCing upstream on this.  Josh, did 1.1.1 change interfaces in
liboggflac?
> If so, it needs a soname change.

as far as I can piece together, the last releases went like:

FLAC release   libOggFLAC went to
-------------  ------------------------------------------
1.1.0          1:2:0 from 1:1:0 (code changes only I think)
1.1.1-beta1    2:0:1 from 1:2:0 (some i'faces added, some changed)
1.1.1          2:1:1 from 2:0:1 (code changes only, no
                                 interface changes)

I think this is all according to the libtool rules in
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#SEC35

the 'enum renumbering' to me implied an 'interface change'
but maybe I misinterpreted.

a more detailed list of what changed between 1.1.0 and 1.1.1
is here (scroll down to the libraries section):

http://flac.sourceforge.net/changelog.html#flac_1_1_1

unfortunately I don't have anything that concise for earlier
versions but I can dig it out of CVS if needed.

--- Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote:
> If, in fact, the underlying C library is somehow exposed in 
> liboggflac++ then, as you suggest, we do have a problem there. 
> Again, I need an authoritative statement if you want something
> done upstream.

hmm... not sure what "exposed" means in the libtool numbering
sense.  the libOggFLAC++ includes do #include the libOggFLAC
headers, but I have been (maybe erroneously) adjusting the
libtool numbers strictly by what changed in the C++ side.

--- Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote:
> Thank you. What I said about the enum was between 1.0.4 and 1.1.1.
> But 
> you are correct. 1.1.0 has version-info 1:2:0 and also does not
> include 
> the new streaming api or the enum reordering. So the update to 2:1:1
> in 
> the 1.1.1 release was incorrect. I should have been 2:0:0. (2:1:0
> works 
> too.)

I don't see how it was wrong... but maybe FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 was
the missing link.

I don't know what the custom on numbering betas is, but
flac-1.1.1-beta1 was public and people tend to live on the edge
linking and shipping beta stuff, so I thought it was safest to
treat it as a real version as far as libtool numbering goes.

Josh



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com