On 2024/08/02 18:45, Robert Palm wrote:
>
> Zitat von Thomas Frohwein <tfrohw...@fastmail.com>:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 09:25:41AM +0200, Robert Palm wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Thomas Frohwein <tfrohw...@fastmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 09:48:31PM +0200, Robert Palm wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to know why, the following libs are named
> > > > >
> > > > > libSDL2_image.so.1.1
> > > > > libSDL2_ttf.so.0.1
> > > > >
> > > > > and not
> > > > >
> > > > > libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0
> > > > > libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Ports:
> > > > > devel/sdl2-image
> > > > > devel/sdl2_ttf
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it because of CMAKE_SHARED_LIBRARY_SUFFIX ? How does it work?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As to the why in the sense of the reason for the decision - this
> > > > decision was made before my time. My understanding is that upstream
> > > > decision to append '-2.0' didn't serve a useful purpose (SDL2 in the
> > > > library name really tells you everything and at this point it looks
> > > > like the next version will be SDL3).
> > > >
> > > > Also note the comment in CMakeLists.txt:
> > > >
> > > > # For historical reasons, the library name redundantly includes the
> > > > major
> > > > # version twice: libSDL2-2.0.so.0.
> > > >
> > > > As to the technical why - the port uses configure/Makefile and the patch
> > > > for Makefile.in removes the use of LT_RELEASE which is responsible for
> > > > the '-2.0' in other platforms.
> > > >
> > > > This is for devel/sdl2, probably similar for the sdl2-* ports. At this
> > > > point this is moot as upstream has already acknowledged that this
> > > > library naming will be stopped with SDL3.
> > >
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > understand - thanks a lot for your detailed explanations!
> > >
> > > I'll simply use symlinks so that the sdl2 libs can be found...typically,
> > > they are refered to by the 2 "standard" designators like
> > >
> > > ("libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0" "libSDL2_ttf")
> > > ("libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0" "libSDL2_image")
> > >
> > > Looking forward for SDL3 then.
> > >
> > > Best, Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Not sure what project this is referring to... as long as this is open
> > source, you can probably patch it to dlopen 'libSDL2_ttf.so' without
> > the version suffix and same for SDL2_image, as jsg@ pointed out.
>
> Thanks again jsg@ and thfr@.
>
> https://github.com/Failproofshark/cl-sdl2-ttf
> https://github.com/lispgames/cl-sdl2-image
>
> I can work around it, but was interested why it's "different"...
Even if it used LT_RELEASE and had -2.0 in the main part of the library
name, specifying the major version in dlopen() isn't reliable on
OpenBSD anyway, library version numbers are under the control of
ports and we will bump the library version in a port if there are
incompatible changes to a library regardless of whether upstream has
bumped it or not.
Generally if a port is using dlopen and isn't just using the base
library name (libfoo.so) it should be patched to do so.
