[ODE] SVN rev 966 builds squeaky clean on my OS X box

[Terry L. Triplett]

On 5/23/06, Jason Perkins <starkos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Great! I've lost track: are there any other build issues to resolve?
>


As mentioned a few times in past messages, it would be nice to have the
build system generate an soname (
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Library-related_Commands_and_Files#soname)
for the ODE shared library on systems where it's relevant.  The topic never
seems to get a response when I mention it, so maybe I'm either touching on a
taboo subject, a sensitive one or one irrelevant to most ODE users.

Arguments I've heard against:

- ODE's shared lib is flaky somehow - the static library is
preferred/recommended.  I'm not sure how true this is anymore. The shared
library seems to work fine.
- the ODE API/ABI isn't stable, so it's premature to assign a version to the
library.  Perhaps, but given the length of time between 0.5 and the upcoming
release, the rate of change in ODE seems to qualify as "stable enough".

Why this is of interest:

- Packaging guidelines for some linux distributions (e.g. Debian:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html) require shared
libraries to have a proper soname.
- In contexts where the static library isn't suitable (such as the .NET
bindings I maintain), the shared library is essential.  In addition to the
above mentioned packaging issues, having a proper soname would help with
matching releases of the bindings to particular ODE versions.

Given that things seem fairly stable right now with respect to builds, I
hate to mess things up, so I'm just raising the point for discussion. In
theory the changes to the build system should be fairly trivial, but you
never know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://q12.org/pipermail/ode/attachments/20060523/f13d8209/attachment.htm