From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F5BA0548; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:14:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAA940692; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:14:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602954067B for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:14:07 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1638461646; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YsYePX2cjHOJcICE47qE7Zz3dJYUMrfoYyI6A8BIhYw=; b=c/4k3KVKEjsYo9XRelzWTAe9MhDjkovS27oISNoNDYkAcOu1R6JGnUH2FDFXo4JNRO3Rnh Zcxrq66rKUYAkFnJAXV9qiWZO6WQem9OQT4jcgJeD0CO+oJQZ7z/81jfZL6vfyLUgl81OQ L00xFTS+pRBivgwulNOFpVijQc9iA6k= Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-172-x_iy-NUGOJ2ACH2-J_XbzA-1; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 11:14:03 -0500 X-MC-Unique: x_iy-NUGOJ2ACH2-J_XbzA-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id u20-20020a056512129400b0040373ffc60bso11318549lfs.15 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:14:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YsYePX2cjHOJcICE47qE7Zz3dJYUMrfoYyI6A8BIhYw=; b=4l9CQuyjdNe4dNMpfzduOI77ZphnPcgzEojGBKM6sCWchJzlHKuO9HwLdijBL221x2 qA9JmJr5gaq0CKPDFvUhQ4bDpEd8Rb6errTSCiSyHZozvEM/L5FYes0YKx1ep7NfWRhW u0NMvCp6PgBCJ27U+LIVprfdD76GJ+tEWGqNmMEVbapgO4KmIk+XBE1ouREc2HA/uA3G UvK6qNl7+pjtMpDQZOg2tVp5Ze8EOuCyB8hnUVfRty+aF9jrNY7XI68yS801NKCkx77g /qNakZzoipm43OdBnHkBi/lFZAjzUQM08hFS4kmP69GEm/tTYibHaFm6krGkq/X5zp5T 85SA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532flmFjb6dPry8V3g98Yq2hHUJ7Wy8Bk2ji/HcyNCIexGt9F1aU JRHpVjkxNf+K2z4b3oIRFKLq1Vu1XbeIdPsRcYX9yfqP5hYtjRDqwxPB0LBy+bftWA0gY1vWJjq kFzETTwNiYO3kDYy4oCY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:32c9:: with SMTP id f9mr12922593lfg.575.1638461642311; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:14:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysbVNJf1Zpi/jns8eZe8BY2dqvO88gryGkLaZKKDLRvTw+JDsiAbltknNwA1BmqnBihcFsqd3TdzJlDZXhfSI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:32c9:: with SMTP id f9mr12922575lfg.575.1638461642121; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:14:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211129131653.15301-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <2714023.X9hSmTKtgW@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:13:51 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] version: 22.03-rc0 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev , Aaron Conole , Michael Santana , Dodji Seketeli Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:51 PM David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 4:35 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 29/11/2021 14:16, David Marchand: > > > Start a new release cycle with empty release notes. > > > Bump version and ABI minor. > > > Enable ABI checks using latest libabigail. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand > > [...] > > > - LIBABIGAIL_VERSION: libabigail-1.8 > > > + LIBABIGAIL_VERSION: libabigail-2.0 > > > > What is the reason for this update? Can we still use the old version? > > Nothing prevents from using the old version, I just used this chance > to bump the version. > > I talked with Dodji, 2.0 is the version used in Fedora for ABI checks. > This version comes with enhancements and at least a fix for a bug we > got when writing exception rules in dpdk: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28060 I ran more checks with 2.0 and unfortunately, I get an issue with dpdk on Fedora 35 libabigail. 2.0 built in Ubuntu does not seem affected, but I prefer to be safe, stick to 1.8 version and wait for Dodji to have a look. v2 on the way. -- David Marchand