[SDL] [PATCHES] Dynamic library name: should it be libSDL2-2.0.so or libSDL2.so?

Alexander Sabourenkov llxxnntt at gmail.com
Sun Mar 3 11:11:44 PST 2013

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Ryan C. Gordon <icculus at icculus.org> wrote:
> I should say "there _will_ be games in the field expecting this."
> The Valve Runtime is providing this SONAME, and we expect Steam-based titles
> will use it.

I bought a game on linux steam specifically to see what are they
thinking and got launch failures not even acknowledged by the UI.
Reason? They bundled some (outdated by definition) libstdc++ which
prevented Mesa GL drivers from loading. This isn't even an yet
unreleased library and they already messed stuff up.

Thus I am sure whatever Valve folks, or people releasing on Steam for
linux do for about half a year at least must be taken with
overwhelming amounts of salt. They also have magnificent patching
process. At least it insists on downloading tens of megabytes about
every couple of days.

I understand that I don't have any idea what are Valve requirements
for a linux release. Maybe there are none whatsoever.

However, let this critical binary-compatability decision which would
not be possible to revert not be driven by some early adopters, which
I suspect never even hinted anything about.

> True, and when SDL2 is officially locked down, binary compatibility will be
> law, just like we did for SDL 1.2 over the course of a decade.

Yup, and library soname is as much a binary compatibility issue as
method signatures are. Why does it need be locked before that?



More information about the SDL mailing list