An additional complication with the kadm5 sonames

[Tom Yu]

Sam Hartman <hartmans at MIT.EDU> writes:

>>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Hudson <ghudson at MIT.EDU> writes:

>     Greg> I am reluctant to perform a basename change for 1.8.  We've
>     Greg> entered the testing cycle, it's a shorter one than we're used
>     Greg> to for previous releases, and this does not feel like a
>     Greg> conservative change.  
>
> Note that libkadm5 has much less of a compatibility guarantee than other
> libraries.  Why does changing the base name not feel conservative?

Changing the base name is less conservative than a SONAME version bump
because changing the base name requires more extensive changes to the
Makefiles.

>     Greg> At the moment I favor bumping the
>     Greg> libkadm5clnt and libkadm5srv soname suffixes to 100 and
>     Greg> declaring anything more comprehensive to be out of scope for
>     Greg> this release.
>
>
> I'd be comfortable with this approach if there was coordination with
> Heimdal.  Without that coordination, the basename change seems like a
> better bet.
> One of the assumptions behind this position is that coordinating with
> Heimdal is relatively easy on this matter.

I would actually prefer a smaller number than 100, in case there are
systems that impose limitations on version numbers.

Love, are you watching this thread?  Is causing a large bump to the
MIT libkadm5 SONAME versions likely to prevent this sort of version
conflict with Heimdal in the future?