[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatiblity

[Luca Boccassi]

On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 11:14 +0000, Ray Kinsella wrote:
> 
> On 11/12/2019 11:11, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:04:01AM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 10:26 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > > The soname for each stable ABI version should be just the ABI
> > > > version
> > > > major
> > > > number without the minor number. Unfortunately both major and
> > > > minor
> > > > were
> > > > used causing version 20.1 to be incompatible with 20.0.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch fixes the issue by switching from 2-part to 3-part
> > > > ABI
> > > > version
> > > > numbers so that we can keep 20.0 as soname and using the final
> > > > digits
> > > > to
> > > > identify the 20.x releases which are ABI compatible. This
> > > > requires
> > > > changes
> > > > to both make and meson builds to handle the three-digit version
> > > > and
> > > > shrink
> > > > it to 2-digit for soname.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: cba806e07d6f ("build: change ABI versioning to global")
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <
> > > > thomas at monjalon.net
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <
> > > > bruce.richardson at intel.com
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > This patch contains an alternative fix to that implied by the
> > > > previous patches:
> > > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/63726/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/63728/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  ABI_VERSION         | 2 +-
> > > >  drivers/meson.build | 4 ++--
> > > >  lib/meson.build     | 4 ++--
> > > >  mk/rte.lib.mk       | 5 ++++-
> > > >  4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Luca Boccassi <
> > > bluca at debian.org
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Thank you! I've set a reminder in my calendar for September to
> > > revert
> > > it :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Lol, don't forget to put another reminder to fix things properly
> > then too.
> > :-)
> > 
> > We also still need consensus in the community as to whether to take
> > this
> > approach or to do a re-spin of 19.11. At this point, I'm swayed by
> > your
> > arguments and think we should keep compatibility at the cost of a
> > little
> > pain and weirdness in our .so filenames.
> > 
> > /Bruce
> > 
> 
> My vote would be for a respin.
> We don't yet know what challenges the weirdness or pain will be.
> Why we would bother for the sake of a respin?
> 
> Ray K

We already uploaded 19.11 to Debian last week, which means the tarball
is in the archive and it's hashsummed and signed:

http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/dpdk/dpdk_19.11.orig.tar.xz

(it's in experimental, but the archive is the same)

A respin at this point would make my life not impossible, but quite
difficult.

IMHO respins are acceptable within a few hours - two weeks later it's
no longer a respin, it's a new version :-)

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi