| Re: [AD] 5.0 and 5.2 on the same system |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Peter Wang <novalazy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:56:12 +0100, Elias Pschernig <elias.pschernig@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I still think when compiling 5.0 code for 5.2 it actually *should* be
>> manually checked for any deprecated code and someone should be forced
>> to consciously change the version from 5.0 to 5.2.
>
> I don't understand what you want to achieve with that. 5.2 will be
> almost completely source compatible with 5.0 so there's nothing to
> check. If I have Allegro 5.2 installed and the program I'm trying to
> build tries to link with allegro-5.0, I'm just going to bump it to
> allegro-5.2 without any further thought. It's just an annoyance.
>
Yes, basically I want to reserve the right to change the API between
major versions. To me it just always is the worst nightmare that I
suddenly end up having to keep supporting some old feature just to
stay compatible with something :P But it means I'd also just
change/remove/rename API symbols without compatibility #defines and so
on. Since we do have those, I guess it would be consequential to keep
the same library name (even though I don't like the whole concept).
>
> I assume by full name you mean the library with the soname.
>
Yes. Right now it is strange that the pkgconfig files are named -5.0
and the .so paths in the resulting binary are named -5.0, but some
intermediate command-line returned by pkgconfig says just -lallegro.