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

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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.