Re: [gnome-db] Libgda modifications in CVS HEAD

["Gustavo R. Montesino" <grmontesino ig com br>]

On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 08:09:28PM +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 15:45 -0200, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 05:37:04PM +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 23:56 -0200, Gustavo R. Montesino wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 05:45:22PM +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 15:17 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 00:00 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 16:59 -0600, Daniel Espinosa wrote:
> > > > > > > > This change is API incompatible with the last version
> > > > > > > > of LibGDA, then is it correct for a version 1.x?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > no, API changes are not allowed in the 1.2 series. We might probably
> > > > > > > high the version number to 2.0 for that version
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So this new libgda version will be parllel-installable with libgda-1.2.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So it needs a new pc file, and a different name for the libarary. Do you
> > > > > > plan to make those changes?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Unfortunately, you already use "2" in the library name, 
> > > > > > /opt/gnome210/lib/libgda-2.so
> > > > > > so you might want to choose a different even number for this new version
> > > > > > to avoid confusion.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > hmm, right. What about calling the lib libgda-2-0.so or something, and
> > > > > thus make it match with the libgda version number?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or any other idea? Having libgda-2.0.pc and libgda-3.so might be a bit
> > > > > confusing.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, I'm trying to make 1.0 and 1.2 parallel-installable on Debian,
> > > > and it doesn't seems so hard. It would be hand to have a configure
> > > > switch to choose a provider dir though (doing that is somewhere on my
> > > > TODO, but time...). I'm also not sure about how to handle configuration
> > > > and gconf yet. 
> > > > 
> > > > libgdasql also have the same soname (0) on 1.0 and 1.2 (BTW, they really
> > > > have the same API? It looks like it on surface, but I've made only
> > > > simple tests).
> > > > 
> > > no, there have been changes, but we forgot to up the soversion :(
> > > 
> > > It's now changed in HEAD.
> > 
> > Wouldn't be better to fix it in 1.2 branch also? Keeping two API-incompatible
> > libs with the same soname around sounds bad...
> > 
> they are not really API-incompatible, AFAIR. Vivien?

I've taken a closer look. At least the following is API-incompatible:

===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gnome/libgda/libsql/sql_parser.h,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -r1.3 -r1.13
--- sql_parser.h	2003/08/01 09:37:32	1.3
+++ sql_parser.h	2004/10/25 13:36:21	1.13
 
-int sql_statement_append_field(sql_statement * statement, char *tablename, char *fieldname);
+int sql_statement_append_field(sql_statement * statement, char *tablename,
+                               char *fieldname, char *as);

There are also some new functions, and some seems to have been removed
also (not sure on this one though).
-- 
Gustavo R. Montesino
Debian Brasil - http://www.debianbrasil.org/