Neal Becker wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
[...]
So, if I understand you correctly, you say soname for boost-1.33.0 should be 1.33?
Not exactly what I said :-) I meant that at _minimum_ it should be "1.33", but that I preferred it to be "1.33.0" as we don't explicitly make *any* version binary compatability assurances.
It isn't AFAICT.
objdump -p /usr/lib64/libboost_python.so.1.33.0 | awk '/SONAME/ {print $2}' libboost_python.so.1.33.0
Since I implemented the SONAME stuff I did what I preferred ;-)
I agree with you - it _should_ be 1.33, but it doesn't look like it is set correctly.
The big question... Are Boost developers willing to make the guarantee that patch versions, i.e. 1.33.0 to 1.33.1, will be binary compatible? -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org