On Tuesday 25 February 2014 08:04:16 Kevin Ottens wrote: > On Monday 24 February 2014 20:23:25 šumski wrote: > > On Monday 24 of February 2014 16:13:48 Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > ... > > > > > Shall I do this change to the frameworks? > > > > My opinion as a fellow packager is - please don't. IMHO, now that the > > versioning is fully correct, it would be really weird to have soversion 5 > > at version 4.97.0 > > Yes I agree there. > > Please don't. The early versioning at 5.0.0 we had for the tech preview was > a mistake, it's been caught and fixed, so let's keep doing things properly > now following proper versioning.
But, I think Jonathan is right for the SOVERSION. Imagine you have libattica.so.4 for the kde4 version (random example, might not match reality). The kf5 version should be libattica.so.5, even in alpha/beta versions. You don't want it to conflict with libattica.so.4 during alpha/beta phase, and then suddenly jump to libattica.so.5. libattica.so.5 with a "public version number" (in headers, packages etc.) of 4.96.0 sounds right to me. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5 _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
