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 958F1A0555; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:43:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45651BF7C; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:43:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C373525B3 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:43:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D82722165; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:43:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=02qHASvqTveuos642XSuURwinSBa7S9hXSZEPm4tUwc=; b=S8dnIRfXcJo6 j0K1SzAuKtFh+ijIeyRPDEmnShyu/4yTHWVxm5pEkmXT9/gmBv49JsBGM7WfCmll sIDrSSRWP+vlMcV9OK4N13LiQ3gHRGFS6X3A6ry9FXEZyA/VJR23TEqErkOqn8LC RpwaWbaNWyrhekdO/vrxw+I5xt41Iww= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=02qHASvqTveuos642XSuURwinSBa7S9hXSZEPm4tU wc=; b=T3kpztvfMrbjXYx6x56w5nN7tOWUAOMjTyZr9hlFmzkjoZsDWv4vtdxHS cmbr0cxz/NrRizicvRkLsRVcXbxTbK3Fk5qIp18vb5uG3Vb7a0mARezK9Fab1fYC UimRLC7+yWZ2p1VNuKsWffFjUJJT34JWHw6OYMH61+BYEC8zG2xdB8OUUFEClQwt 3z+y/deL1XN8rpvSSHBq6Ge4oO7bjlc3Hh/7bkwFjl+Oni3qXPOQjI7l2p0X8BS5 ZefsTSoBMslBl15BF4YGYzRojfCBFkQosipvMC2f/s+l7WHdM9Xo+OYoJGCbUD2M p0dVvysDa2wRfwANEMuIc093uIX7Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrkedtgdegfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucffoh hmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrsh esmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght 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 2F1653060FD3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:43:03 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Neil Horman Cc: Bruce Richardson , ray.kinsella@intel.com, bluca@debian.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, ktraynor@redhat.com, dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:43:01 +0100 Message-ID: <5254976.hdfAi7Kttb@xps> In-Reply-To: <20200219114330.GB357121@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <44659287.fMDQidcC6G@xps> <4488034.BEx9A2HvPv@xps> <20200219114330.GB357121@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [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" 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.