Re: ITL release process

[Thamer Mahmoud <thamer at newkuwait dot org>]

(This message was sent hours ago but didn't get there because of a bad
Smart host (?). I'm sending again and I'm sorry If it's being sent
twice)

Samy Al Bahra writes:
[...]
 > 3) The library naming scheme is incorrect. libitl-${VERSION}.so is not a
 >     standard naming convention and will create conistency issues with
 >     many systems for future ITL software.
 > 

It is actually libitl.${VERSION}.so (i.e. with a dot), which is even
worse.

I see a lot of version numbers after the .so in Debian's
"/usr/lib". Would something like this "libitl.so.0.0.6" be
appropriate? Anyways, I've made this change in CVS and it is also
easier to remove the all ${VERSION} info now.

 > With that out of the way, I would like to note the ABI breakage that
 > will occur with my third point, and a point that must be executed.
 > 

Why so? The library SONAME is currently libitl.so.0 (with no version
number). If I understand this correctly, unless you bump the SONAME
number up nothing will break/change.

Salaam,
Thamer Mahmoud