Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <022f01c0f466$7bbe6250$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Cygwin-Apps" <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf DOT Habacker AT saght DOT tessag DOT com>,
        "Suhaib Siddiqi" <ssiddiqi AT inspirepharm DOT com>,
        "Alan Hourihane" <alanh AT fairlite DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
References: <000901c0f3f4$413954e0$6e032bb7 AT BRAMSCHE> <011801c0f3f8$7f2034f0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3B277ED2 DOT BA40EBD1 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Subject: Re: ask for delivering cygwin 1.1.8 with kde 1.1.2
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:10:55 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2001 00:00:38.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B993C80:01C0F465]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf DOT Habacker AT saght DOT tessag DOT com>; "Cygwin-Apps"
<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>; "Suhaib Siddiqi" <ssiddiqi AT inspirepharm DOT com>;
"Alan Hourihane" <alanh AT fairlite DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: ask for delivering cygwin 1.1.8 with kde 1.1.2


> Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> > If libjpeg is breaking it's own ABI in a non-backward compatible
fashion
> > without incrementing it's major version number, then I would be
going
> > and talking to them with big sticks.
>
> That is correct.  The jpeg ABI changed between 6a and 6b, therefore
the
> 6b dll uses "cygjpeg6b.dll" as its versioned name.  Ditto readline
> between 4.1 and 4.2 -- the ABI (and API) changed; since I wasn't
> expecting *that*, the 4.1 readline dll was "cygreadline4.dll" but the
> 4.2 dll was "cygreadline4.2.dll".  However, the cygwin readline 4.2 is
> still marked "test" -- it's not too late to change the name to
> "cygreadline4-2.dll" if you think that's a better scheme.  I do NOT
> believe that dll names should include patch numbers or release
numbers.
> Preferably only major numbers -- and minor numbers if necessary due to
> bonehead ABI changes...

I Agree that dll's should only have major numbers (".."). Libtool
numbers by ABI and API, so for libtool, we should be able to minimise
the number of concurrent .dll's needed. I _think_ the major number
always changes on backwards-compatible-breakages (ABI or API).

> IMO, libtool (or KDE) shouldn't try to parse dll names for versioning
> information.  Instead, it should build a tiny app (just link:
> -lreadline -- without a version # -- always works); this app should
just
> return the version string *as the library stores is*.  Almost all
> libraries have some sort of getVersion function.

Libtool isn't ralf's problem - it's the code from libjpeg that's causing
grief. Libtool doesn't care or check version numbers. In fact in libtool
you cannot specify "I need version foo", you can only specify "this
library I am making is compatible to the last 3 revisions, has had 45
trivial changes, and is on it's 3 rewrite".

<skip discussion on identifying libraries>
> which returns "4.2" -- and really represents the dll version since
> rl_library_version is a const char* DATA export from the dll.
>
> > >From what you are saying it sounds like a program llinked to
libjpeg
> > 6.1.0 won't run with libjpeg 6.1.1. That's pretty unusual for
> > libraries - can the version checking be made more sane? Or is that
> > because of the current beta state of libjpeg?
>
> See above.  Jpeg isn't really beta, in the sense that it will
eventually
> be made "stable".  6b is about two years old.  Tom Lane has mumbled
> about releasing 6c "eventually" -- but don't hold your breath.  "6c"
> will NOT contain any of the jpeg2000 stuff, even if 6c is ever
actually
> released.

Given the above, that the library file name changed with the ABI,
libjpeg should not be an issue, if ralf links against the correct
library name - which will be resolved by the import library at link
time. So... what's happening?

Rob

> --Chuck
>