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

[Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>]

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?

Ray K