Re: New port: devel/objfw

Am 31.08.23 um 09:56 schrieb Jonathan Schleifer:

> Am 31.08.23 um 08:26 schrieb Stuart Henderson:
>>>> SHARED_LIBS +=  objfw           1.0
>>>> SHARED_LIBS +=  objfwrt         1.0
>>>> SHARED_LIBS +=  objfwtls        1.0
>>> I can't remember how strict we are with these version starting numbers
>>> but iirc we start with 0.1 (?) I don't really mind if this isn't
>>> changed.
>>> The bumpings are the more important ones anyway.
>> 0.0.
>>
>> The key thing is to make sure that changing the versions in SHARED_LIBS
>> changes the versions of the produced file, i.e. make sure that ports is
>> in control.
>
> Ok, now I have questions :).
>
> I was under the impression that the the SHARED_LIBS should match the
> .so name? This would be the case with 1.0, as upstream used 0.0 during
> development when there was no stable ABI/API (and users could have
> installed such a pre-1.0 release manually on OpenBSD). I could find
> https://man.openbsd.org/library-specs.7 which seems to indicate it
> must match the .so name, as well as lining out rules on when and how
> to update the version, which match upstream in this case (I can vouch
> for this, as I am the upstream).
>
> Given that, wouldn't it be better to have it 1.0 instead of always one
> major version less than upstream?*
>
> * Very, very early, there was a major version of as high as 8. But
> this was a decade or so ago and I think nobody ever used it. And on a
> version that was very much declared "this WILL break, don't use this
> for anything"

I'm happy to change it to 0.0, of course, but would really like to fully
understand the implications of this. Should every port, when imported to
OpenBSD, change the soname to 0.0?

--
Jonathan