[cfe-commits] Please provide a SONAME to libclang

[Douglas Gregor]

On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:

>>> Why the .1? The file is just libclang.so.
>> Hmm, .0 will be fine too (I increased the number moving from 2.9 => 3.0)
>> 
>> Under debian, I am doing a symlink
>> /usr/lib/libclang.so -> libclang.so.1
>> libclang.so being provided by libclang-dev for build purposes while 
>> libclang.so.1 is provided by libclang1
> 
> May I ask way? I am not familiar with how distros handle sonames, but I
> see two cases
> 
> * libraries like liblcms that have a symbolic link and a versioned soname:
> 
> $ ls -l liblcms.so
> ... liblcms.so -> liblcms.so.1.0.19
> $ readelf -aW liblcms.so
> ... Library soname: [liblcms.so.1]
> 
> And libraries with no link and an unversioned soname:
> 
> $ readelf -aW libssl3.so
> ... Library soname: [libssl3.so]
> 
> I don't see what you win by adding the link and the soname. The clang
> developers are the ones in a position to break or not the backwards
> compatibility.
> 
> I am also not sure how backward compatible is libclang. Doug?

We try to maintain backward compatibility, so I think it does make sense to use a versioned soname.

	- Doug