25 Feb
2016
25 Feb
'16
3:27 a.m.
subj;
Build files are mostly identical but usability test are required.
14 Mar
14 Mar
3:35 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
On Thursday 25 of February 2016 04:27:55 Fat-Zer wrote:
subj;
Build files are mostly identical but usability test are required.
I'm a little confused. Although in Makefile.am libraries have given version
3.0.2, when building using automake libraries are created with version 1.2.0!
It is not clear to me what causes 3.0.2 => 1.2.0. Hovewer, during build along
with a patch for cmake conversion libraries are created with version 3.0.2.
This causes an unexpected change in version number of libraries.
We should change the version in the cmake patch to 1.2.0?
Cheers
--
Slávek
11:35 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
2016-03-14 6:35 GMT+03:00 Slávek Banko <slavek.banko(a)axis.cz>cz>:
On Thursday 25 of February 2016 04:27:55 Fat-Zer
wrote:
I believe there is some bug in the autotools because Makefiles.am
contains "-version-info 3:0:2"; I've got no idea where 1.2.0 may show
up from...
subj;
Build files are mostly identical but usability test are required.
I'm a little confused. Although in Makefile.am libraries have given version
3.0.2, when building using automake libraries are created with version 1.2.0!
It is not clear to me what causes 3.0.2 => 1.2.0. Hovewer, during build along
with a patch for cmake conversion libraries are created with version 3.0.2.
This causes an unexpected change in version number of libraries.
We should change the version in the cmake patch to 1.2.0?
11:36 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
2016-03-14 14:35 GMT+03:00 Fat-Zer <fatzer2(a)gmail.com>om>:
2016-03-14 6:35 GMT+03:00 Slávek Banko
<slavek.banko(a)axis.cz>cz>:
PS: May those changes break anything?
On Thursday 25 of February 2016 04:27:55 Fat-Zer
wrote:
I believe there is some bug in the autotools because Makefiles.am
contains "-version-info 3:0:2"; I've got no idea where 1.2.0 may show
up from... subj;
Build files are mostly identical but usability test are required.
I'm a little confused. Although in Makefile.am libraries have given version
3.0.2, when building using automake libraries are created with version 1.2.0!
It is not clear to me what causes 3.0.2 => 1.2.0. Hovewer, during build along
with a patch for cmake conversion libraries are created with version 3.0.2.
This causes an unexpected change in version number of libraries.
We should change the version in the cmake patch to 1.2.0?
3:33 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
Dne po 14. března 2016 Fat-Zer napsal(a):
2016-03-14 6:35 GMT+03:00 Slávek Banko
<slavek.banko(a)axis.cz>cz>:
I traced that it's not a bug in autotools, but that there are two different
options:
-version-info current[:revision[:age]]
If output-file is a libtool library, use interface version information
current, revision, and age to build it (see Versioning). Do not use this flag
to specify package release information, rather see the -release flag.
-version-number major[:minor[:revision]]
If output-file is a libtool library, compute interface version information so
that the resulting library uses the specified major, minor and revision
numbers. This is designed to permit libtool to be used with existing projects
where identical version numbers are already used across operating systems.
New projects should use the -version-info flag instead.
Source:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Link-mode.html#Link-mo…
When instead of -version-info 3:0:2 is used -version-number 3:0:2, the library
gets the expected ouptut file:
@libkolf.so
@libkolf.so.3
*libkolf.so.3.0.2
Automake option -version-info is obviously something else than VERSION for
cmake build. I think that's not a good idea to change the version number of
the libraries, when there is no reason to do so. I therefore propose to
change the in cmake files VERSION to 1.2.0.
What is your opinion?
--
Slávek
On Thursday 25 of February 2016 04:27:55 Fat-Zer
wrote:
I believe there is some bug in the autotools because Makefiles.am
contains "-version-info 3:0:2"; I've got no idea where 1.2.0 may show
up from...
subj;
Build files are mostly identical but usability test are required.
I'm a little confused. Although in Makefile.am libraries have given
version 3.0.2, when building using automake libraries are created with
version 1.2.0! It is not clear to me what causes 3.0.2 => 1.2.0. Hovewer,
during build along with a patch for cmake conversion libraries are
created with version 3.0.2. This causes an unexpected change in version
number of libraries.
We should change the version in the cmake patch to 1.2.0?
4:52 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
2016-03-14 18:33 GMT+03:00 Slávek Banko <slavek.banko(a)axis.cz>cz>:
Dne po 14. března 2016 Fat-Zer napsal(a):
I traced that it's not a bug in autotools, but that there are two different
options:
-version-info current[:revision[:age]]
If output-file is a libtool library, use interface version information
current, revision, and age to build it (see Versioning). Do not use this flag
to specify package release information, rather see the -release flag.
-version-number major[:minor[:revision]]
If output-file is a libtool library, compute interface version information so
that the resulting library uses the specified major, minor and revision
numbers. This is designed to permit libtool to be used with existing projects
where identical version numbers are already used across operating systems.
New projects should use the -version-info flag instead.
Source:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Link-mode.html#Link-mo…
When instead of -version-info 3:0:2 is used -version-number 3:0:2, the library
gets the expected ouptut file:
@libkolf.so
@libkolf.so.3
*libkolf.so.3.0.2
Automake option -version-info is obviously something else than VERSION for
cmake build. I think that's not a good idea to change the version number of
the libraries, when there is no reason to do so. I therefore propose to
change the in cmake files VERSION to 1.2.0.
What is your opinion?
--
Slávek
Ok... Go ahead...
I still don't really understand what the version-info is and what for
libtool versioning is used but I figured out how the "1.2.0" is
related to 3:0:2 : It's (current-age).(age).(revision).
9:27 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
On Monday 14 of March 2016 17:52:39 Fat-Zer wrote:
I still don't really understand what the
version-info is and what for
libtool versioning is used but I figured out how the "1.2.0" is
related to 3:0:2 : It's (current-age).(age).(revision).
Can make a sense to add to the macro tde_add_library possibility to specify
version by option VERSION_INFO - with the same behavior as is in libtool?
What do you think?
--
Slávek
10:43 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
On Thursday 25 of February 2016 04:27:55 Fat-Zer wrote:
subj;
Build files are mostly identical but usability test are required.
Patches pushed to GIT. Making it possible to use parallel build for tdegames!
Thank you for your good work!
--
Slávek
11:14 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] [Patch] tdegames: initial cmake conversion
2016-03-15 0:27 GMT+03:00 Slávek Banko <slavek.banko(a)axis.cz>cz>:
On Monday 14 of March 2016 17:52:39 Fat-Zer wrote:
IMHO it doesn't...
I'm still not sure, but I suspect the "version-info" is just a
libtool-specific way to set the library version and to deal with the
dependency hell... Normal conventions like «you increase major if you
break backward compatibility, you increase minor if you break forward
compatibility and you increase revision if you break neither» seams to
me more straight-forward and got mostly the same meaning... May be
this version syntax is also a workaround for some weird platforms
nobody cares about any-more.
Afterall I don't think we are in general too careful (should we/are
we?) about such things because of very limited man-power... so I
suspect we don't even really support release mixing (do we?) and there
are no third-party applications that depends on us (except a couple in
the neighbouring thread)...
I still don't really understand what the
version-info is and what for
libtool versioning is used but I figured out how the "1.2.0" is
related to 3:0:2 : It's (current-age).(age).(revision).
Can make a sense to add to the macro tde_add_library possibility to specify
version by option VERSION_INFO - with the same behavior as is in libtool?
What do you think?
2972
days inactive
2990
days old
8 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Fat-Zer -
Slávek Banko