Am 13.03.22 um 22:18 schrieb Thomas Haller:
On Sun, 2022-03-13 at 16:01 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:Am 13.03.22 um 12:46 schrieb Thomas Haller:On Sat, 2022-03-12 at 21:55 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/girepository-1.0/NMA4-1.0.typelib ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnma-gtk4.so ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnma-gtk4.so.0.0.0 ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkgconfig/libnma-gtk4.pc ./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnma-gtk4.so.0 ./usr/share/vala/vapi/libnma-gtk4.vapi ./usr/share/vala/vapi/libnma-gtk4.deps ./usr/share/gir-1.0/NMA4-1.0.giryes. I think it's fine. is there a problem? You cannot load gtk3 and gtk4 in the same application, and consequently, you cannot load libnma.so (gtk3) and libnma-gtk4 together. libnma is a GUI library based on GTK. It seems not unreasonable that the GTK version is part of the library name -- in particular, as there might come GTK5 in the future. These are really two different libraries (with very similar API and the same underlying sources).I see the necessity and maybe this is just bike shedding on my side but I'd personally prefer the gtk part being dropped, so the soname becomes libnma-4.so.0 And correspondingly libnma-4.pc (libnma4.pc would be fine as well). Or do we have some prior art where the gtkX string is encoded in the library soname? I also find it a bit inconsistent that the gobject instrospection files do not have GTK string embedded.Hi, I tend to agree. but it might be too late for that... even if it was announced as experimental :) Lubomir, wdyt?
Could we have some definitive answer if the naming is going to stay?I have a request in Debian to enable gtk4 support in libnma but before doing that, I'd like to have an answer here first.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature