[Pkg-gtkpod-devel] libplist/libimobiledevice releases

[nikias.bassen at gmail.com]

Thanks for your reply.

> Am 01.07.2025 um 09:06 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac at debian.org>:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
>> On Mon, 2025-06-30 at 11:36 +0200, Nikias Bassen wrote:
>> I wanted to ask you about some changes I have in my mind for upcoming
>> releases of libplist/libusbmuxd/libimobiledevice etc.
> 
> Hi Nikias, thanks for reaching out. I'm adding the maintainers list on
> recipients so they can chime in if needed.
> 
>> Now as you remember a few years ago, based on Martin's suggestion, we
>> changed the actual library name to libplist-2.0, libusbmuxd-2.0,
>> libimobiledevice-1.0 etc.
>> both the actual name and also the pkg-config name. Now I received quite some
>> negative feedback back then, breaking builds etc.
> 
> I can understand the negative feedback at the time of the break, but as far as
> I remember it was really needed to do that breakage once and then be aligned
> with best practice in managing shared libraries, wrt. API, SONAME/SOVERSION
> etc.
> 
> At least for Debian I think we're pretty happy with the current situation,
> except maybe the fact that releases happen pretty rarely (and thus we might
> have to backport fixes or package snapshot from time to time).

I am planning to do more frequent releases.

>> I have some larger changes coming up, mostly it’s about changes related to
>> what was summarized in this
>> ticket: https://github.com/libimobiledevice/libimobiledevice/issues/1672
>> Now I will obviously have to bump major version numbers for the libs, and at
>> the same time I was thinking of dropping the version suffix on the library
>> name again.
> 
> So you would like to rename the library so the .so would switch from
> libimobiledevice-1.0.so.6.0.0 to (say) libimobiledevice.so.7.0.0 or something
> like that?

That was the idea. If we keep the API version suffix, an upcoming (ABI/API breaking) release of libplist would become libplist-3.0.so.x.y.z (currently libplist-2.0.*), libimobiledevice-2.0.* and obviously also a  corresponding change in the soversion.

> 
>> Several distributions have been placing symlinks for pkgconfg and/or library
>> names for quite some time anyway.
>> What do you think about this change, would you appreciate it or would you
>> rather be totally against it?
> 
> At first sight I don't think it'd be a good idea, both because of the new
> breakage/transition and because that reverts to previous name (we switch in
> 2020 so it's not that long, especially in Debian terms :)

Yes, my concern was that too, hence I reached out.


> But I'd be interested in opinion from other people from the team here :)
> 
> Regards,
> - --
> Yves-Alexis
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAmhjiQEACgkQ3rYcyPpX
> RFvyUQf+KDA2G83YedAUDUPxH3XpTitMtGptV51xlRUfrpuFaHj8LyGEgoyW2mTY
> W0JtfTOOZlABfDMbhHHES+ZfqJsz88hTGO+D9q/tnFBCkqymh6RBCgNvfVVmGvgY
> k/IeAaileyy7M6pDIkUDKhNbh9/jBsvPsmd/SOH2EuUOCQr3I3rKd7evY/FlrnhS
> MGLXPjG0se/no6KRAWjUH/X8bAEGbMPgnni+h7DEXsf1Ig6vI83+qZ/lLW0vSP5c
> fvpIe7RiPHVRNK1N/ySmINEb7y/+KCGclQSJkzL21iqIFjq/Ot0qZazrTs4Vjfco
> uXU4gCrm63/KrZfdaCVBWSUUZo/HGw==
> =tZni
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----