On Tuesday 25 February 2014 13:06:25 David Faure wrote: > 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.
I still don't think that kind of conflict matters until the final is out. > libattica.so.5 with a "public version number" (in headers, packages etc.) of > 4.96.0 sounds right to me. Looks like an extra opportunity for error when we jump from non-final to final and it'll have to be in sync again. Beside I still don't see a clear motive behind that change (Jonathan hinted at helping with packaging but it looks like not all packagers agree). Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
