[xmlsec] versioning and library naming policies

Aleksey Sanin aleksey at aleksey.com
Thu Mar 27 08:30:40 PST 2003

Hi, John!

You are absolutely right about the versioning. I just did not have time 
to fix
makefiles yet.


John Belmonte wrote:

> Hi Aleksey,
> You haven't stated any policies, but it seems your intention is to 
> sometimes be developing more than one version at a time (e.g. 0.0.x 
> and 0.1.x series).  Will even versions be stable and odd be 
> development, like the Linux kernel, or is this only coincidence?
> In any case, I think some changes to the naming of library files may 
> be necessary.  One reason is to allow a separate SONAME sequence for 
> each series. Here is what I propose for both the file name and SONAME 
> of shared libraries:
> For example:
>     libxmlsec-0.0.so.0
>     libxmlsec-0.1.so.0
> and static libraries would be:
>     libxmlsec-0.0.a
>     libxmlsec-0.1.a
> This also helps the packagers who have to maintain multiple series.  
> We can name our packages in a similar way (xmlsec-0.0, etc.).
> A few examples of other libraries using this convention are libtk/tcl 
> and libgimp.
> I'm not an expert about these things, but that is my take.  If two 
> series are going to be significant at the same time then:
>    * developers need a way to work with both series on the same 
> machine, so static library file names must include the series version 
> number
>    * to avoid confusion, SONAME sequences should progress naturally, 
> and not be affected by some other version, so dynamic library file 
> names and SONAMES also must include the series version number.
> Regards,
> -John

More information about the xmlsec mailing list