I probably could be more clear about what I'm trying to convey. Tool A is written to manage mods for game B, and lots of mods for that game utilize library C. Tool A does not directly load or link to library C, but it does inspect the version of library C that currently exists alongside game B so that it can detect if mods depend on a newer version of it and notify the user that it needs to be updated.

I'm realizing now that I forgot an important detail in all of this: the metadata of the library existed as part of the metadata that the filesystem itself tracked rather than something in the contents of the file itself. This metadata doesn't seem to exist on Linux (which library C only supports if running via Proton rather than any native Linux version of the game). I could imagine it might be possible for this to be set as some sort of extended attribute on a Unix filesystem, but in practice it seems that the library will have this extended filesystem metadata when downloading the DLL onto a Windows machine (presumably with an NTFS filesystem) but not a Linux one.

> so that it can detect if mods depend on a newer version of it and notify the user that it needs to be updated.

The dynamic linker will literally tell you this, if you ask it.

> the metadata of the library existed as part of the metadata that the filesystem itself tracked rather than something in the contents of the file itself.

So does this metadata has anything to do with the file at all, or could I also attach it to e.g. an MP4 file? If that is the case than the difference is that the distributor for MS Windows did add the attribute and the distributor for GNU/Linux did not, it doesn't have anything to do with the platform.

EDIT:

> (which library C only supports if running via Proton rather than any native Linux version of the game

So library C isn't even an ELF shared object, but a PE/COFF DLL? Then that complaint makes even less sense.

I assume it's the ability to tag a .dll as version 0.0.0.1 or whatever (it shows up under the file name in Windows Explorer). I think company name is another one that Windows Explorer displays but there are probably a few other supported attributes as well.

Well, then the answer is that shared objects on GNU/Linux do not have a finite version, they just implement them. This is because they are expected to implement more than one version, so that you can just update the shared object, and it will still work with programs that expect to call the old ABI. You can however get the latest version. This is also what is in the filename. Note, that there are two versioning schemes: semver and libtool, they mean the same, but are notated differently. This version does not does not necessary equal the version of the project/package, APIs/ABIs can and do have their own version numbers.

I think this is just solving a different but related problem. Symbol versioning enables you to make observable changes to the behavior of some library like a libc while providing backwards compatibility by providing the old behaviors indefinitely. I've never gotten the impression that it is "prescribed" that shared objects on a Linux system don't have a specific/definite version, and I don't think that symbol versioning is necessarily appropriate for all programs, either-it just happens to be a mechanism used by glibc, and I don't think it is very common outside of glibc (could be wrong.)

On the other hand, the Windows NE/PE VERSIONINFO resource is mostly informational in nature. I think early on in the life of Windows, it was often used to determine whether or not the system library shipped by an installer was newer than the installed version, so that program installers could safely update the system libraries when necessary without accidentally overwriting new versions of things with older versions. That's just simply a problem that ELF shared objects don't try to solve, I reckon, because there aren't usually canonical binaries to install anyways, and the problem of distributing system libraries is usually left up to the OS vendor.

Actually though, there is another mechanism that Linux shared objects often use for versioning and ABI compatibility: the filename/soname. Where you might have a system library, libwacom.so.9.0.0, but then you also have symlinks to it from libwacom.so.9 and libwacom.so, and the soname is set to libwacom.so.9.

There is, of course, no specific reason why ELF binaries don't contain metadata, and you could certainly extend ELF to contain PE-style resources if you want. (I remember some attempts at this existed when I was still getting into Linux.) It may be considered "bad practice" to check the runtime version of a library or program before doing something, in many cases, but it is still relatively common practice; even though there's no standard way to do it, a lot of shared objects do export a library function that returns the runtime version number, like libpng's png_access_version_number. Since distributions patch libraries and maybe even use drop-in replacements, there is obviously no guarantee as to what this version number entails, but often it does entail a promise that the ABI should be compatible with the version that is returned. (There is obviously not necessarily a canonical "ABI" either, but in most cases if you are dealing with two completely incompatible system/compiler ABIs there isn't much that can be done anyways, so it's probably OK to ignore this case.)

So I think the most "standard" way to embed the "version" of a shared object on Linux is to export a symbol that either returns the version number or points to it, but there is no direct equivalent to the PE VERSIONINFO standard, which may be a pain when the version number would be useful for something, but the developers did not think to explicitly add it to the Linux port of their software, since it is often not used by the software itself.

But I personally wouldn't agree with the conclusion that "shared objects on GNU/Linux do not have a finite version" as a matter of course; I think the more conservative thing to say is that there is not necessarily a definite version, and there is not necessarily a "canonical" binary. In practice, though, if your copy of libSDL is an almost-unmodified build of the source tree at a given version 3.0.0, it is entirely reasonable to say that it is "definitely" libSDL 3.0.0, even though it may not refer to an exact byte-for-byte source tree or binary file.