Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Brian Barrett (brbarret_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-15 13:08:50

Nooooo! :)

It would be good for everyone to read the Libtool documentation to
see why versioning on the release number would be a really bad idea.
Then comment. But my opinion would be that you should change based
on interface changes, not based on release numbers.


On Oct 15, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> WHAT: Add versioning to all OMPI libraries so that shared libraries
> use the real version number in the filename (vs. the current "*.so.
> 0.0.0")
> WHY: It's a Good Thing(tm) to do.
> WHERE: Minor changes in a few's; probably some small
> tweaking to top-level and/or some support m4 files.
> WHEN: After timeout.
> TIMEOUT: COB, Tuesday Oct 23rd, 2007
> -----
> Currently, all OMPI shared libraries are created with the extension
> ".so.0.0.0". We have long discussed using Libtool properly to use a
> real/meaningful version number instead of "0.0.0" but no one has ever
> gotten a round tuit.
> I propose that v1.3 is [finally] the time to do this properly. I'm
> trolling through the configure/build system for a few other issues; I
> could pick this up along the way. My specific proposal is that all
> shared libraries be suffixed the numeric version number of Open MPI
> itself. For example, the first release that uses this functionality
> will have
> Note that this still does not enable installing multiple versions of
> OMPI into the same prefix (for lots of other reasons not covered
> here), but at least it does allow multiple libraries in the same tree
> for backwards binary compatibility issues, and gives a visual
> reference of the library's version number in its filename.
> DSOs will remain un-suffixed (e.g.,
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]