Re: Let's do SOVERSION according to traditions and documentation

Ahoy ahoy!

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 12:03=E2=80=AFPM Sune Vuorela <[email protected]> w=
rote:
> In https://invent.kde.org/plasma/libplasma/-/merge_requests/1439 Harald
> suggests to divert from the long established norm so that we have
>
> libplasma.so.7 =3D> libplasma.so.6.6.1 confusing both humans and scripts,
> and wants a discussion on k-c-d wether or not we should follow
> historical norms or not.

Which scripts get confused by this?

I currently have 143 libraries installed for which the scheme you
outline does not apply. A good 20 or so are ours. Looks like about 10
of those actually are in plasma even. So, I maintain that there is no
issue. If there ever was one, the ship has long since sailed and this
is a moot argument to have in 2026.

> It is also surprising because one might have libfoo.so.6 =3D>
> libfoo.so.6.6.0 nad libfoo.so.7 =3D> libfoo.so.6.6.0 symlinks in the same
> hand compiled sessions.

It'd be
libfoo.so.6 -> libfoo.so.6.6.0
and
libfoo.so.7 -> libfoo.so.6.6.1
nobody advocates for time travel to change the soversion of 6.6.0, I think.

> So, what should we do ?

Land the MR and carry on with useful work has my vote.

HS