OK to bump soname for a lesser-used library?

[Dan Horák]

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

> > Minor numbers really do not belong in sonames, for this exact reason.
> > Every soname string is essentially a unique major version number.
> 
> Well, "minor" is relative, and upstream is consciously choosing not to
> preserve ABI in this release, so the soname change is appropriate.
> 


Dan