> Why wasn't the SONAME bumped to reflect the ABI breakage? For me, SONAME bump was meant for the C ABI. I don't think this was intended for the C++ one.
> We dropped the virtual dependency that required rebuilding for every > GDAL version change because you claimed that this wasn't required any more. There has been obviously a misunderstanding. The rule we follow is that: - between GDAL X.Y.Z and X.Y.(Z+1), both C and C++ ABI are stable - between GDAL X.Y and X.(Y+1), the C ABI is stable, but the C++ one not And this is what we have in our release procedure: """ 4) Update LIBGDAL_CURRENT/REVISION/AGE macros in GDALmake.opt.in. - For a release with no interface changes just bump REVISION. - Adding interfaces, bump CURRENT/AGE, set REVISION to 0. - Deleting interfaces / compatibility issues - bump CURRENT, others to zero. """ So as interfaces were added, I bumped CURRENT/AGE and set REVISION to 0. But maybe "compatibility issues" should also be understood to changes that affect the C++ ABI ? I'm not sure about the resolution here. Should I do a RC3 that sets CURRENT/REVISION/AGE to 27/0/0 ? Would that help ? Even -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
