typo in set_target_properties() in /lib/dpx/CMakeLists.txt

[michaeldsmith]

in /lib/dpx/CMakeLists.txt

set_target_properties(IlmCtlSimd
	PROPERTIES
		VERSION ${CTL_VERSION}
		SOVERSION ${CTL_VERSION}
)

should be

set_target_properties(ctldpx
	PROPERTIES
		VERSION ${CTL_VERSION}
		SOVERSION ${CTL_VERSION}
)

[LecrisUT]

Is the SOVERSION == CTL_VERSION intentional? It does mean all dependents must always rebuild on version bumps

[michaeldsmith]

This is how it was setup before I took over as maintainer. Do you have any other suggestion on how this should be setup?

Another contribution use the same style here #153

[LecrisUT]

Usually the SOVERSION is the major version. It should be bumped only if ABI changes (function signature, struct, etc. change)

[michaeldsmith]

@LecrisUT what do you think about splitting CTL_VERSION into a Major and Minor and Patch version number, and then using Major.Minor for the SOVERSION instead of Major.Minor.Patch ? This is how another library I'm familiar with (OpenJPH) does it here https://github.com/aous72/OpenJPH/blob/5df0f8c1fcf4400aea39fa93fc7ca74cd9631d3d/src/core/CMakeLists.txt#L137

@paolostivanin let us know if you have any feedback.

Do you think it might cause problems if the SOVERSION were to switch from 1.5.3 to 1.5 ?

[LecrisUT]

Do you think it might cause problems if the SOVERSION were to switch from 1.5.3 to 1.5 ?

Not more than the current one. Downstream distros will need to adjust their globing, but already they are usually not allowed to glob the SOVERSION so no major disturbance.

@LecrisUT what do you think about splitting CTL_VERSION into a Major and Minor and Patch version number, and then using Major.Minor for the SOVERSION instead of Major.Minor.Patch ?

Yes, that's acceptable. It's up to upstream to decide where to signal when downstream users need to rebuild the dependencies. The important part is that you do not remove, change the signature or change a struct shape fo updates below the SOVERSION. Additions are also technically breaking ABI, but I have not seen it cause troubles. Usually we catch these issues downstream if anything slips up.

Note that project(VERSION) already does that splitting.

[paolostivanin]

I completely agree with @LecrisUT :)

[michaeldsmith]

@LecrisUT @paolostivanin I just added PR #186 to try to address your suggestion about SOVERSION=MAJOR.MINOR instead of SOVERSION=MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH

Please let me know if you have any feedback, or suggestions, etc.