Am 03.09.23 um 12:55 schrieb Jeremie Courreges-Anglas:
> On Sun, Sep 03 2023, Jonathan Schleifer <js-openbsd-ports@nil.im> wrote:
>> 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?
> The library version should be 0.0 for a new port and the soname should
> match the library name.
Ah, OK, so then I was confused by the documentation, which I interpreted
as it needs to match. Then I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't
be set to 0.0 indeed.
> That's how we handle it in ports, with all due
> respect that's not something that you, as an upstream, should feel
> concerned about IMO.
Sorry, I didn't mean to question the way you do things in OpenBSD ports,
I was merely trying to understand if that has any implications for soname.
> The version used in ports may stay at 0.0 or move to 0.1 or 1.0, 2.0
> etc, it depends on how you (upstream) preserve or change API and ABI in
> the future, but it may also depend on changes in the OpenBSD base system
> and ports tree. That's why the port for objfw should have complete
> control about the version used.
All good then! Should I send another tarball with it set to 0.0, or is
this small enough for whoever imports it to just do it?
Thanks again!
--
Jonathan
No comments:
Post a Comment