[dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

Thomas Monjalon thomas at monjalon.net
Fri Feb 21 17:57:07 CET 2020


19/02/2020 14:50, Ray Kinsella:
> On 19/02/2020 12:43, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 19/02/2020 12:43, Neil Horman:
> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:50:09AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 18/02/2020 10:42, Bruce Richardson:
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:15:56AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to remind everybody our mistake when defining ABI versions.
> >>>>> It has been "fixed" in this commit:
> >>>>> http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=f26c2b39
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let's think about the consequence for the experimental libraries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In DPDK 19.11, we use the ABI version 0.200 with soname 0.20 In DPDK
> >>>>> 20.02, we use the ABI version 0.2001 with soname 0.201 Numbers are
> >>>>> increasing, that's fine.  When we'll switch to the new major ABI and use
> >>>>> a normal numbering: In DPDK 20.11, we will use the ABI version 0.210 with
> >>>>> soname 0.21 Numbers are dropping.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In short, for experimental libs, ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are we OK with this or do we prefer reverting to normal numbering for
> >>>>> experimental libraries in DPDK 20.02?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Personally, I would not be too concerned about the verions of experimental
> >>>> libs, so long as they don't conflict across versions and have some
> >>>> similarity to the major ABI version for the release.
> >>>
> >>> You think sorting of the version numbers is not important?
> >>> If we don't care comparing experimental version numbers,
> >>> then OK, let's drop this patch. But please we need a small vote.
> >>>
> >>> Note: there would be no problem if we did not vote for having
> >>> a special numbering for pure experimental libraries (I am still against).
> >>>
> >> I don't understand.  Why would we change the ABI_VERSION at all in an LTS release at
> >> all?  This operation is meant to take an an experimental API and mark it as
> >> stable by promoting its version number to the next major releases number.  As
> >> such, in the LTS release, we should keep the soname the same, as there should be
> >> no other ABI changes in the promoted API.
> > 
> > The library version number is updated because we add new symbols.
> > 
> > 
> 
> So while experimental library version numbers are not "important".
> I do agree with Thomas they should be sane, increase and should have a consistent format.
> 
> Should we always just pad them to 4 places as the simple solution?
> i.e.
> 
> DPDK 19.11 ... 0.20 (needs to remain 0.20).
> DPDK 20.02 ... 0.2001
> DPDK 20.11 ... 0.2100
> DPDK 21.02 ... 0.2101 

A patch from Ferruh got merged.
It is adding a dot to keep versioning consistent.

Marking this patch as rejected.




More information about the dev mailing list