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

[Rodrigo Hernandez]

Libtool is troublesome on Windows, not only because it uses the awfuly 
OLD way of creating dlls, but also because
in Windows, appending a version number to the dll filename makes no sence.

Also, having a systemwide ODE shared library means selecting beween 
single and double, for which it would probably be a good idea to have both,
perhaps libode.single.so.0.6.0 and libode.double.so.0.6.0, which, if we 
stop now and implement would mean even more time before we see a 0.6.0 
version.

if it is posible to do sonames without libtool, I could try and make a 
workaround in autotools, but I dont think it will be on 0.6.0.

Terry L. Triplett wrote:

> On 5/23/06, *Jason Perkins* <starkos at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>ODE mailing list
>ODE at q12.org
>http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>  
>