OK to bump soname for a lesser-used library?

[Dan Horák]

Dan Horák píše v Út 05. 03. 2013 v 18:57 +0100: 
> Josh Stone píše v Út 05. 03. 2013 v 09:44 -0800: 
> > On 03/05/2013 07:59 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 14:07 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> > > 
> > >> So given that this library's use is pretty well contained, might it be
> > >> OK to go ahead and update in F18?
> > > 
> > > Yeah, that's fine.
> > > 
> > > In the future, consider following the glibc pattern of fixing the soname
> > > for all but truly-world-breaking changes, and using symbol versions to
> > > annotate API additions.  That way a package that uses an API introduced
> > > in dyninst 8.2 will get an rpm Requires for foo.so(dyninst-8.2)(64bit),
> > > which will make yum automatically search for a sufficiently new dyninst
> > > package without breaking the soname.
> > 
> > Is that feasible for C++ APIs?  I mean, it might be possible if you're
> > *really* careful about hiding class changes, but this project is not
> > structured that way.
> 
> it is, see eg. the wxWidgets library, they are really good in that

and as example
http://svn.wxwidgets.org/viewvc/wx/wxWidgets/branches/WX_2_8_BRANCH/version-script.in?view=markup


Dan