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 E715AA054F; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:16:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79F01C10C; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:16:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1CFA3 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:16:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E8A2207A; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:15:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=uTL0i0r5Dg BnTzBap2zTUiMkErHVuCOckyahJ7619P8=; b=h25ImVmz9ZmHBPCfl2Q5wztG4K ozQK8KK7RGzan+TXedyTa1HjNemlvpwb21NKIqHymdeP3N00WQmpR8o6u3GCr4hu gotjuODZP0/9FoE6EW6o/I0UJkC+w9JAzK2ZxB46DB5jvgpajPn9tjuH9Y/4WCrB awicTUkDd0llx00p4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=uTL0i0 r5DgBnTzBap2zTUiMkErHVuCOckyahJ7619P8=; b=ypSK4tVmbcVQ4Mphz/EU4V KItLS93qpqXXCJoz9swKkaMLLMdd4avS/0Hc6jSaMD4LfyGcmSKGGEMVUoqHl4Qw 3HE+9pOZ7q8sgTZcGP8kvVm5Dh5TUvBqgKmFypI4+2iYlSICRLJQK4LV09DkGyU1 sbT511krd4IS7vYi0wGONbhTzd0+mxNC38NKo+DvI5VBz8oaf1r9MBEUdxSUok9J qN5GVBmieNOkrUOAkAQ7ilFo5f3hJQ3kC+b3glgaDugEbCDFvOpTgi00yKOmuJHq ireVGx3FD8Y6gU5dAlnIkJteO9z3xMsPcQFkWrj09V5PukZwcr41RHEbWhXeBKQg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrjeejgddtjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffkfgggfgtsehtufertddttd dvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhn jhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucfkphepjeejrd dufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehm rghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 09C343280059; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:15:57 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: ray.kinsella@intel.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com, bluca@debian.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, ktraynor@redhat.com, dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:15:56 +0100 Message-ID: <44659287.fMDQidcC6G@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [dpdk-dev] ABI version of experimental libraries 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" 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?