Re: library versioning

[Rik]

On 12/09/2011 10:00 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> Should we keep libcruft, liboctave, and liboctinterp versions
> synchronized, or should we handle them individually and only
> update them if necessary?  For example, looking at diffs between
> the current sources and 3.4.3, libcruft did not change, so we
> would not have to increment its version number unless we want to
> keep it in sync with the others that we do update.
>
> Reading the guidelines here
>
>   
> http://www.gnu.org/s/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html#Updating-version-info
>
> it looks like the minimum changes in version numbers would be
>
>   libcruft:     0.0.0 -> 0.0.0
>   liboctave:    0.0.0 -> 1.0.0
>   liboctinterp: 0.0.0 -> 1.0.0
>
> For the future, I would consider merging the three libraries into one,
> but with debugging symbols, that would generate a 325MB file on my
> system.  That seems quite large, especially when we have to generate
> it often.  I think it helps to keep it in separate chunks.
>
> Comments?
Wouldn't it be easier from the user perspective if they were versioned
identically?  I'm imagining running mkoctfile and having to check the
versioning of 3 libraries versus only checking 1 version number.  Are there
actual situations where users might only link against one of the three
libraries, or is it pretty much all or nothing?

--Rik