Because LibRaw is so widely used, I agree that shared libs looks comfortable. I wanted to delay sharedlibs until LibRaw 1.0, but you're so impatient.
If you can provide patches for configure.ac/Makefile.am, these patches are welcome.
The only question is right shared library versioning.
LibRaw API/ABI does not change within major *stable* release (i.e. 0.12.0-Release and 0.12.5-Release have same API and same control structures layout).
API usually changes within Alpha development cycle (from Alpha1 to Beta1) and may change during Beta cycle (between Beta1 and .0-Release).
Is it better to have permanently incrementing library version (i.e. 0.14.Alpha1 ->so.5.0, Alpha2->so.6.0 and so), or version numbers should be incremented only for -Release libraries?
Because LibRaw is so widely used, I agree that shared libs looks comfortable. I wanted to delay sharedlibs until LibRaw 1.0, but you're so impatient.
If you can provide patches for configure.ac/Makefile.am, these patches are welcome.
The only question is right shared library versioning.
LibRaw API/ABI does not change within major *stable* release (i.e. 0.12.0-Release and 0.12.5-Release have same API and same control structures layout).
API usually changes within Alpha development cycle (from Alpha1 to Beta1) and may change during Beta cycle (between Beta1 and .0-Release).
Is it better to have permanently incrementing library version (i.e. 0.14.Alpha1 ->so.5.0, Alpha2->so.6.0 and so), or version numbers should be incremented only for -Release libraries?