2016-03-14 18:33 GMT+03:00 Slávek Banko <slavek.banko@...>: > Dne po 14. března 2016 Fat-Zer napsal(a): > I traced that it's not a bug in autotools, but that there are two different > options: > > -version-info current[:revision[:age]] > > If output-file is a libtool library, use interface version information > current, revision, and age to build it (see Versioning). Do not use this flag > to specify package release information, rather see the -release flag. > > -version-number major[:minor[:revision]] > > If output-file is a libtool library, compute interface version information so > that the resulting library uses the specified major, minor and revision > numbers. This is designed to permit libtool to be used with existing projects > where identical version numbers are already used across operating systems. > New projects should use the -version-info flag instead. > > Source: > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Link-mode.html#Link-mode > > When instead of -version-info 3:0:2 is used -version-number 3:0:2, the library > gets the expected ouptut file: > > @libkolf.so > @libkolf.so.3 > *libkolf.so.3.0.2 > > > Automake option -version-info is obviously something else than VERSION for > cmake build. I think that's not a good idea to change the version number of > the libraries, when there is no reason to do so. I therefore propose to > change the in cmake files VERSION to 1.2.0. > > What is your opinion? > > -- > Slávek > Ok... Go ahead... I still don't really understand what the version-info is and what for libtool versioning is used but I figured out how the "1.2.0" is related to 3:0:2 : It's (current-age).(age).(revision).