From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6379EA04F5; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:09:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D5F374C; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:09:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B414B2BD3 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:09:02 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Dec 2019 07:09:01 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,306,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="208113186" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.46]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 Dec 2019 07:08:59 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:08:56 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Ray Kinsella Cc: Luca Boccassi , dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, ray.kinsella@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com Message-ID: <20191212150856.GD422@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20191211102642.983579-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20191211111148.GA407@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <0f66d7be024f320198950e1c39bbb323337d7688.camel@debian.org> <452a7a0a-2a44-5aec-76ed-f5cf2c8db7a6@ashroe.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452a7a0a-2a44-5aec-76ed-f5cf2c8db7a6@ashroe.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatiblity X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 02:05:44PM +0000, Ray Kinsella wrote: > > > On 12/12/2019 13:58, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > 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@monjalon.net > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson < > >>>>> bruce.richardson@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@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 :-) > > > > Understood, we are stretching the acceptable terms of a re-spin. > > If the version that is in the archive fundamentally broken, what are you going to do. > This is not a relatively easy circumstance that we can simply fix it with an apt-get update. > > Is there precedent for pulling and re-releasing something that is broken in this way? > The thing is that our existing package is not fundamentally broken, it just has a wrong ABI version, which we can work around with a non-massive amount of work. Given we have a fix that avoids any respinning, I see no reason not just to go with it, and keep our ABI compatibility promise. And I, too, have already uploaded a new build recipe, including package checksums, to the FreeBSD ports collection. Respinning would be awkward there too. /Bruce