Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebastic at xs4all.nl
Mon Mar 9 04:12:45 EST 2015

> that is, was the resolution to #263 (r2629) the right one? The consequence
> is, of course, that the original libproj.so.0 is now libproj.so.9, and at
> least GDAL and Spatialite complain (2 of a sample of 2). This means that
> all
> downstream use of libproj.so.0 has to be rebuilt, if I understand
> correctly.

Yes this is correct. During the 4.8 cycle the ABI compatibily was broken
(symbols removed) so a SONAME bump was required. See:


Kind Regards,


More information about the Proj mailing list