[sword-devel] installing Sword in Ubuntu 8.10

[Jason Galyon]

Greg Hellings wrote:
> Jason,
>
>   
>> On a related but lately ignored note, for a packager for any Linux
>> distro, what is the solution for the non conventional naming (versioning
>> really) of the library?
>>
>> It is: libsword-1.5.11.so when it should be something like
>> libsword-1.5.11.so.1 or libsword-1.5.so.11 and then use a symlink for
>> the non versioned name like libsword.1.5.11.so or libsword.1.5.so
>> respectively.
>>     
>
> Unfortunately, the naming schemes you suggest would be deceptive and
> counter-productive.  There is no guarantee that libsword-1.5.11.so
> will be interface-compatible with libsword-1.5.12.so.  So naming them
> libsword-1.5.so.11 and libsword-1.5.so.12 would simply lead to
> confusion.  Calling them libsword.so.1.5.11 would be even more
> misleading.  Those are just my opinion - I see nothing wrong with
> calling it libsword-1.5.11.so.  In fact, I think it's much better than
> libraries which seem to have no way of indicating to someone observing
> them what their actual version might be.  With just a simple glance at
> the libsword name, I can tell what version I'm linking against.
>
> --Greg
>
>   
This is a common problem that the convention seeks to address with its
naming and versioning scheme. In general, it is good practice not to
have your third number (1.2.3) in your version to encapsulate breaking
changes. Generally things are added, not modified in a detrimental way.

Outside of using a package manager and querying that, I can see where it
would be convenient to see the full version of the package. Perhaps
1.5.11.so.1 would work

If bugs are fixed and minor features added, does crosswire have the
policy of then incrementing the minor revision?

Has anyone read this document I linked to see the existing convention
and decided that a different and incompatible approach be taken?

Keep in mind that this is not a suggestion I thought of during the night
and jotted down on a piece of paper. Folks a lot smarter and more
experienced than I came up with this convention. I included a link in my
first email and earlier emails about this subject.

I have yet to see a reason to break the convention that is sound and
merits breaking shlibs functionality. Then again, as an husband and
parent of 3, I am used to compromising and saying 'NO' to instant
gratification and convenience.

Jason