[dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Thomas Monjalon]

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?

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix soname for experimental libraries

[Thomas Monjalon]

Because of an original mistake in ABI numbering,
and a temporary workaround for ABI 20,
for experimental libs, numbering would lead to consider
	ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0

Before this patch:

DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.2001 and soname 0.201
Numbers are increasing, that's fine.
For the next major ABI, back to normal numbering:
DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
Numbers are decreasing!

After this patch:

DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.201 and soname 0.20
DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21

Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")

Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
---
 config/meson.build | 8 ++++----
 mk/rte.lib.mk      | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
index 6c46767e3e..e7cd74e2c2 100644
--- a/config/meson.build
+++ b/config/meson.build
@@ -27,12 +27,12 @@ abi_version = run_command(find_program('cat', 'more'),
 # and the filename suffix as 0.majorminor versions,
 # e.g. v20.1 => librte_stable.so.20.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
 #    sonames => librte_stable.so.20, librte_experimental.so.0.20
-# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.2001
-#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.200
+# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
+#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.20
 abi_va = abi_version.split('.')
 stable_so_version = abi_va.length() == 2 ? abi_va[0] : abi_va[0] + '.' + abi_va[1]
-experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join(abi_va)
-experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join(stable_so_version.split('.'))
+experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0], abi_va[2]])
+experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0]])
 
 # extract all version information into the build configuration
 dpdk_conf.set('RTE_VER_YEAR', pver.get(0).to_int())
diff --git a/mk/rte.lib.mk b/mk/rte.lib.mk
index b1a8372cc2..8730c084ce 100644
--- a/mk/rte.lib.mk
+++ b/mk/rte.lib.mk
@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ LIBABIVER ?= $(shell cat $(RTE_SRCDIR)/ABI_VERSION)
 SOVER := $(basename $(LIBABIVER))
 ifeq ($(shell grep -s "^DPDK_" $(SRCDIR)/$(EXPORT_MAP)),)
 # EXPERIMENTAL ABI is versioned as 0.major+minor, e.g. 0.201 for 20.1 ABI
-LIBABIVER := 0.$(shell echo $(LIBABIVER) | tr -d '.')
-SOVER := 0.$(shell echo $(SOVER) | tr -d '.')
+LIBABIVER := 0.$(shell echo $(LIBABIVER) | cut -d '.' -f1,3 | tr -d '.')
+SOVER := 0.$(shell echo $(SOVER) | cut -d '.' -f1)
 endif
 
 ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB),y)
-- 
2.25.0

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix soname for experimental libraries

[Bruce Richardson]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:44:02AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Because of an original mistake in ABI numbering,
> and a temporary workaround for ABI 20,
> for experimental libs, numbering would lead to consider
> 	ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0
> 
> Before this patch:
> 
> DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.2001 and soname 0.201
> Numbers are increasing, that's fine.
> For the next major ABI, back to normal numbering:
> DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
> Numbers are decreasing!
> 
> After this patch:
> 
> DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.201 and soname 0.20
> DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
> 
> Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> ---
>  config/meson.build | 8 ++++----
>  mk/rte.lib.mk      | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
> index 6c46767e3e..e7cd74e2c2 100644
> --- a/config/meson.build
> +++ b/config/meson.build
> @@ -27,12 +27,12 @@ abi_version = run_command(find_program('cat', 'more'),
>  # and the filename suffix as 0.majorminor versions,
>  # e.g. v20.1 => librte_stable.so.20.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
>  #    sonames => librte_stable.so.20, librte_experimental.so.0.20
> -# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.2001
> -#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.200
> +# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
> +#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.20
>  abi_va = abi_version.split('.')
>  stable_so_version = abi_va.length() == 2 ? abi_va[0] : abi_va[0] + '.' + abi_va[1]
> -experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join(abi_va)
> -experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join(stable_so_version.split('.'))
> +experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0], abi_va[2]])
> +experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0]])
>  

My concern about this is that it will break, or rather need to be changed
again for the 20.11 release. While I see the numbering as not-ideal in
terms of version numbers, the existing scheme was originally designed to
work with either 3-digit or 2-digit version numbers.

/Bruce

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix soname for experimental libraries

[Thomas Monjalon]

18/02/2020 10:40, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:44:02AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Because of an original mistake in ABI numbering,
> > and a temporary workaround for ABI 20,
> > for experimental libs, numbering would lead to consider
> > 	ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0
> > 
> > Before this patch:
> > 
> > DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> > DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.2001 and soname 0.201
> > Numbers are increasing, that's fine.
> > For the next major ABI, back to normal numbering:
> > DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
> > Numbers are decreasing!
> > 
> > After this patch:
> > 
> > DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> > DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.201 and soname 0.20
> > DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
> > 
> > Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > ---
> >  config/meson.build | 8 ++++----
> >  mk/rte.lib.mk      | 4 ++--
> >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
> > index 6c46767e3e..e7cd74e2c2 100644
> > --- a/config/meson.build
> > +++ b/config/meson.build
> > @@ -27,12 +27,12 @@ abi_version = run_command(find_program('cat', 'more'),
> >  # and the filename suffix as 0.majorminor versions,
> >  # e.g. v20.1 => librte_stable.so.20.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
> >  #    sonames => librte_stable.so.20, librte_experimental.so.0.20
> > -# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.2001
> > -#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.200
> > +# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
> > +#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.20
> >  abi_va = abi_version.split('.')
> >  stable_so_version = abi_va.length() == 2 ? abi_va[0] : abi_va[0] + '.' + abi_va[1]
> > -experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join(abi_va)
> > -experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join(stable_so_version.split('.'))
> > +experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0], abi_va[2]])
> > +experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0]])
> >  
> 
> My concern about this is that it will break, or rather need to be changed
> again for the 20.11 release. While I see the numbering as not-ideal in
> terms of version numbers, the existing scheme was originally designed to
> work with either 3-digit or 2-digit version numbers.

It could be improved to work with 2-digit too.

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[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.

/Bruce

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Thomas Monjalon]

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).

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Kinsella, Ray]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Tuesday 18 February 2020 09:50
> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Cc: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@intel.com>; nhorman@tuxdriver.com;
> bluca@debian.org; david.marchand@redhat.com; ktraynor@redhat.com;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: ABI version of experimental libraries
> 
> 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).
> 

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 pad them to 4 places?
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 

Make sense?

Ray K

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 2/18/2020 10:36 AM, Kinsella, Ray wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday 18 February 2020 09:50
>> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
>> Cc: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@intel.com>; nhorman@tuxdriver.com;
>> bluca@debian.org; david.marchand@redhat.com; ktraynor@redhat.com;
>> dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: ABI version of experimental libraries
>>
>> 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).
>>
> 
> 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 pad them to 4 places?
> 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 
> 
> Make sense?
> 

What about following:

DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
------------  -----------  ------       ------------
DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211

This let us turn back to sane versions when soname fixed in 20.11.

Also I think for experimental libraries soname should NOT be same in minor
versions, otherwise it can create false impression that it is ABI compatible
between two minor versions.

I will reply the patch to this email.

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix experimental library versioning

[Ferruh Yigit]

The problem occurred when workaround that makes soname two digits
applied. With this change for the ABI version "20.0.1" the experimental
library version become ".so.2001".
After workaround removed in ABI version 21.0, the experimental library
version will become ".so.210".
"2001" is bigger value than "201" although it is a previous version of
the library version, this can break the version comparisons.

To fix this, introducing a temporary sub level versioning for the
experimental libraries, so that minor version comparison will continue
to work.

After change experimental libraries will follow below versioning:

DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
------------  -----------  ------       ------------
DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211

Note: After workaround removed in DPDK 20.11 and soname switch back to
single digit this patch won't work and needs to be updated.

Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")

Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
---
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: ray.kinsella@intel.com
Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com
Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com
Cc: bluca@debian.org
Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
Cc: ktraynor@redhat.com
---
 config/meson.build | 4 ++--
 mk/rte.lib.mk      | 8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
index 6c46767e3..d3d2370ce 100644
--- a/config/meson.build
+++ b/config/meson.build
@@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ abi_version = run_command(find_program('cat', 'more'),
 #      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.200
 abi_va = abi_version.split('.')
 stable_so_version = abi_va.length() == 2 ? abi_va[0] : abi_va[0] + '.' + abi_va[1]
-experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join(abi_va)
-experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join(stable_so_version.split('.'))
+experimental_abi_version = '0.' + abi_va[0] + abi_va[1] + '.' + abi_va[2]
+experimental_so_version = experimental_abi_version
 
 # extract all version information into the build configuration
 dpdk_conf.set('RTE_VER_YEAR', pver.get(0).to_int())
diff --git a/mk/rte.lib.mk b/mk/rte.lib.mk
index b1a8372cc..682b590db 100644
--- a/mk/rte.lib.mk
+++ b/mk/rte.lib.mk
@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ LIBABIVER ?= $(shell cat $(RTE_SRCDIR)/ABI_VERSION)
 SOVER := $(basename $(LIBABIVER))
 ifeq ($(shell grep -s "^DPDK_" $(SRCDIR)/$(EXPORT_MAP)),)
 # EXPERIMENTAL ABI is versioned as 0.major+minor, e.g. 0.201 for 20.1 ABI
-LIBABIVER := 0.$(shell echo $(LIBABIVER) | tr -d '.')
-SOVER := 0.$(shell echo $(SOVER) | tr -d '.')
+LIBABIVER := 0.$(shell echo $(LIBABIVER) | awk 'BEGIN { FS="." }; { print $$1$$2"."$$3 }')
+SOVER := $(LIBABIVER)
 endif
 
 ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB),y)
@@ -135,7 +135,9 @@ $(RTE_OUTPUT)/lib/$(LIB): $(LIB)
 	$(Q)cp -f $(LIB) $(RTE_OUTPUT)/lib
 ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB),y)
 	$(Q)ln -s -f $< $(shell echo $@ | sed 's/\.so.*/.so/')
-	$(Q)ln -s -f $< $(shell echo $@ | sed 's/\.so.*/.so.$(SOVER)/')
+	$(Q)if [ $(SOVER) != $(LIBABIVER) ]; then \
+		ln -s -f $< $(shell echo $@ | sed 's/\.so.*/.so.$(SOVER)/') ; \
+	fi
 endif
 
 #
-- 
2.24.1

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix experimental library versioning

[Luca Boccassi]

On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 19:54 +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> The problem occurred when workaround that makes soname two digits
> applied. With this change for the ABI version "20.0.1" the
> experimental
> library version become ".so.2001".
> After workaround removed in ABI version 21.0, the experimental
> library
> version will become ".so.210".
> "2001" is bigger value than "201" although it is a previous version
> of
> the library version, this can break the version comparisons.
> 
> To fix this, introducing a temporary sub level versioning for the
> experimental libraries, so that minor version comparison will
> continue
> to work.
> 
> After change experimental libraries will follow below versioning:
> 
> DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
> ------------  -----------  ------       ------------
> DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
> DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
> DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
> DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
> DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211
> 
> Note: After workaround removed in DPDK 20.11 and soname switch back
> to
> single digit this patch won't work and needs to be updated.
> 
> Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11
> compatibility")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <
> ferruh.yigit@intel.com

Acked-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>

This solution looks like a good compromise to me. Thanks Ferruh.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix experimental library versioning

[Ray Kinsella]

On 20/02/2020 19:54, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> The problem occurred when workaround that makes soname two digits
> applied. With this change for the ABI version "20.0.1" the experimental
> library version become ".so.2001".
> After workaround removed in ABI version 21.0, the experimental library
> version will become ".so.210".
> "2001" is bigger value than "201" although it is a previous version of
> the library version, this can break the version comparisons.
> 
> To fix this, introducing a temporary sub level versioning for the
> experimental libraries, so that minor version comparison will continue
> to work.
> 
> After change experimental libraries will follow below versioning:
> 
> DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
> ------------  -----------  ------       ------------
> DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
> DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
> DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
> DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
> DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211
> 
> Note: After workaround removed in DPDK 20.11 and soname switch back to
> single digit this patch won't work and needs to be updated.
> 
> Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
> 

Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>

> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> ---
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Cc: ray.kinsella@intel.com
> Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com
> Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com
> Cc: bluca@debian.org
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
> Cc: ktraynor@redhat.com
> ---
>  config/meson.build | 4 ++--
>  mk/rte.lib.mk      | 8 +++++---
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
> index 6c46767e3..d3d2370ce 100644
> --- a/config/meson.build
> +++ b/config/meson.build
> @@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ abi_version = run_command(find_program('cat', 'more'),
>  #      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.200
>  abi_va = abi_version.split('.')
>  stable_so_version = abi_va.length() == 2 ? abi_va[0] : abi_va[0] + '.' + abi_va[1]
> -experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join(abi_va)
> -experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join(stable_so_version.split('.'))
> +experimental_abi_version = '0.' + abi_va[0] + abi_va[1] + '.' + abi_va[2]
> +experimental_so_version = experimental_abi_version
>  
>  # extract all version information into the build configuration
>  dpdk_conf.set('RTE_VER_YEAR', pver.get(0).to_int())
> diff --git a/mk/rte.lib.mk b/mk/rte.lib.mk
> index b1a8372cc..682b590db 100644
> --- a/mk/rte.lib.mk
> +++ b/mk/rte.lib.mk
> @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ LIBABIVER ?= $(shell cat $(RTE_SRCDIR)/ABI_VERSION)
>  SOVER := $(basename $(LIBABIVER))
>  ifeq ($(shell grep -s "^DPDK_" $(SRCDIR)/$(EXPORT_MAP)),)
>  # EXPERIMENTAL ABI is versioned as 0.major+minor, e.g. 0.201 for 20.1 ABI
> -LIBABIVER := 0.$(shell echo $(LIBABIVER) | tr -d '.')
> -SOVER := 0.$(shell echo $(SOVER) | tr -d '.')
> +LIBABIVER := 0.$(shell echo $(LIBABIVER) | awk 'BEGIN { FS="." }; { print $$1$$2"."$$3 }')
> +SOVER := $(LIBABIVER)
>  endif
>  
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB),y)
> @@ -135,7 +135,9 @@ $(RTE_OUTPUT)/lib/$(LIB): $(LIB)
>  	$(Q)cp -f $(LIB) $(RTE_OUTPUT)/lib
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_SHARED_LIB),y)
>  	$(Q)ln -s -f $< $(shell echo $@ | sed 's/\.so.*/.so/')
> -	$(Q)ln -s -f $< $(shell echo $@ | sed 's/\.so.*/.so.$(SOVER)/')
> +	$(Q)if [ $(SOVER) != $(LIBABIVER) ]; then \
> +		ln -s -f $< $(shell echo $@ | sed 's/\.so.*/.so.$(SOVER)/') ; \
> +	fi
>  endif
>  
>  #
> 

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix experimental library versioning

[David Marchand]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:55 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>
> The problem occurred when workaround that makes soname two digits
> applied. With this change for the ABI version "20.0.1" the experimental
> library version become ".so.2001".
> After workaround removed in ABI version 21.0, the experimental library
> version will become ".so.210".
> "2001" is bigger value than "201" although it is a previous version of
> the library version, this can break the version comparisons.
>
> To fix this, introducing a temporary sub level versioning for the
> experimental libraries, so that minor version comparison will continue
> to work.
>
> After change experimental libraries will follow below versioning:
>
> DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
> ------------  -----------  ------       ------------
> DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
> DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
> DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
> DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
> DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211
>
> Note: After workaround removed in DPDK 20.11 and soname switch back to
> single digit this patch won't work and needs to be updated.
>
> Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
>
> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>

The soname change breaks existing applications like testpmd (linked to
various experimental libraries).
I have the full details if needed in a pastebin (v19.11, master, patch_applied).

$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/builds/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/install/lib
$HOME/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/bin/testpmd
/home/dmarchan/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/bin/testpmd:
error while loading shared libraries: librte_flow_classify.so.0.200:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory


libabigail reports this change as an error, so if it is intended, we
need to bypass the check for those libraries.

Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed (2 filtered out), 0
Added functions
Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
ELF SONAME changed
Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed (7 filtered out), 0
Added functions
Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
SONAME changed from 'librte_flow_classify.so.0.200' to
'librte_flow_classify.so.0.200.1'
Error: ABI issue reported for 'abidiff --suppr
/home/dmarchan/dpdk/devtools/libabigail.abignore --no-added-syms
--headers-dir1 /home/dmarchan/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/include
--headers-dir2 /home/dmarchan/builds/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/install/include
/home/dmarchan/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/dump/librte_flow_classify.dump
/home/dmarchan/builds/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/install/dump/librte_flow_classify.dump'



-- 
David Marchand

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix experimental library versioning

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 2/21/2020 3:24 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:55 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> The problem occurred when workaround that makes soname two digits
>> applied. With this change for the ABI version "20.0.1" the experimental
>> library version become ".so.2001".
>> After workaround removed in ABI version 21.0, the experimental library
>> version will become ".so.210".
>> "2001" is bigger value than "201" although it is a previous version of
>> the library version, this can break the version comparisons.
>>
>> To fix this, introducing a temporary sub level versioning for the
>> experimental libraries, so that minor version comparison will continue
>> to work.
>>
>> After change experimental libraries will follow below versioning:
>>
>> DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
>> ------------  -----------  ------       ------------
>> DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
>> DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
>> DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
>> DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
>> DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211
>>
>> Note: After workaround removed in DPDK 20.11 and soname switch back to
>> single digit this patch won't work and needs to be updated.
>>
>> Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> 
> The soname change breaks existing applications like testpmd (linked to
> various experimental libraries).
> I have the full details if needed in a pastebin (v19.11, master, patch_applied).
> 
> $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/builds/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/install/lib
> $HOME/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/bin/testpmd
> /home/dmarchan/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/bin/testpmd:
> error while loading shared libraries: librte_flow_classify.so.0.200:
> cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> 
> 
> libabigail reports this change as an error, so if it is intended, we
> need to bypass the check for those libraries.

soname change was intended, we don't provide any ABI compatibility in the
experimental libraries, keeping same soname may mislead as if we do.

The impact of it is, any application linked against experimental library will
need to recompile in new release.

Can we add exception to the the libabigail for experimental libraries?

> 
> Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed (2 filtered out), 0
> Added functions
> Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
> ELF SONAME changed
> Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed (7 filtered out), 0
> Added functions
> Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
> SONAME changed from 'librte_flow_classify.so.0.200' to
> 'librte_flow_classify.so.0.200.1'
> Error: ABI issue reported for 'abidiff --suppr
> /home/dmarchan/dpdk/devtools/libabigail.abignore --no-added-syms
> --headers-dir1 /home/dmarchan/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/include
> --headers-dir2 /home/dmarchan/builds/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/install/include
> /home/dmarchan/abi/v19.11/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/dump/librte_flow_classify.dump
> /home/dmarchan/builds/x86_64-native-linux-gcc+shared+kmods/install/dump/librte_flow_classify.dump'
> 
> 
> 

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix experimental library versioning

[David Marchand]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 8:55 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
>
> The problem occurred when workaround that makes soname two digits
> applied. With this change for the ABI version "20.0.1" the experimental
> library version become ".so.2001".
> After workaround removed in ABI version 21.0, the experimental library
> version will become ".so.210".
> "2001" is bigger value than "201" although it is a previous version of
> the library version, this can break the version comparisons.
>
> To fix this, introducing a temporary sub level versioning for the
> experimental libraries, so that minor version comparison will continue
> to work.
>
> After change experimental libraries will follow below versioning:
>
> DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
> ------------  -----------  ------       ------------
> DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
> DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
> DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
> DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
> DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211
>
> Note: After workaround removed in DPDK 20.11 and soname switch back to
> single digit this patch won't work and needs to be updated.
>
> Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
>
> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>

Acked-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>


Applied.

-- 
David Marchand

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[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.

Neil

> 
> 

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Thomas Monjalon]

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.

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[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 

Make sense?

Ray K

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Thomas Monjalon]

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.

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Ray Kinsella]

On 21/02/2020 16:57, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
> 

Ferruh's was a better solution.  

Re: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries

[Neil Horman]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 01:43:01PM +0100, 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.
But thats a matter of policy (and possibly build mechanics).  Not saying agree
with this approach necessecarily (as I've not fully thought it through), but we
could make room in the policy for this eventuality.

Neil
> 
> 
>