[Xlibs] libXfont shared library version

[Jim Gettys]

I think the major issue separating us between where we
are now and regular releases is looking at all the XFree86
stuff since 4.3.

I wish I could say we only had to vet what has happened
since we branched from XFree86, but, unfortunately, Keith's
and my bitter experience is that significant patches have gone
into XFree86 without decent review and/or even trivial testing, so
we have one rock fetching exercise to do before "blessing" this
implementation.

Stuart Kreitman at Sun may also be able to put these libraries
through some serious testing as well, from conversations we've
had with him.  But I think we need to go through the patches
before asking him if he can do so.
                      - Jim

On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 23:12, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 19:55, Keith Packard wrote:
> > Around 19 o'clock on Nov 8, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > 
> > > Like this?  What should the package version be?  Some of the xlibs have
> > > a package version equal to the shared lib version, others don't.
> > 
> > Yeah, the patch looks fine.  Did you test on BSD and Linux to make sure 
> > the .so gets the right version extension?
> > 
> > I don't know about package versions; we should come up with some kind of 
> > sensible plan.  I think we'll have to plan an fd.o desktop release version 
> > at some point, then we can base the package versions on the overall fd.o 
> > release version.  As to what that version number should be, I really 
> > couldn't say; it may be version 7 (as in X11R7).
> 
> Yeah, the version numbers came out right (.so.1.4.1 on linux, .so.1 on
> FreeBSD).  So, go ahead and commit with the package version number
> change?
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm working on getting the fd.o xlibs into FreeBSD
> already.  I'm really frustrated with the monolithicness of even our
> split XFree86 packages, and the lack of shared libs for some of them is
> causing problems on other platforms.  What I'm doing right now is
> building ports of the current libs, and putting snapshots on my homepage
> with a ".p1" (pre1) suffix on the version number.  When I get those
> working well I'll move our XFree86 packages to using those (or releases
> if they're ready), with the XFree86-4-libraries packages providing the
> remaining libraries from XFree86 and depending on the fd.o ones.  The
> one thing that would be bad for this system is if any of the version
> numbers of the packages go backwards for their final release, so it
> would be nice if we could sort that out.
> 
> I would lean towards the idea of the libraries initially having the
> shlib version as the package version, and then increasing the package
> version independently from there on out.  The desktop release version
> wouldn't be related to the versions of the individual parts.
-- 
Jim Gettys <Jim.Gettys@hp.com>
HP Labs, Cambridge Research Laboratory