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 BDE8DA04A2; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:21:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889F61BEE1; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:21:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC861BEDF for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:21:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ua1-f70.google.com (mail-ua1-f70.google.com [209.85.222.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2E7C859FE for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-f70.google.com with SMTP id d22so4140703ual.1 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:21:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/w5Tx3G7vym/a+hsWLiWvJ+1RtDtkvGIVYL0WeiGgdQ=; b=dXDxgdzkbYmlfeMP+nqnrYJ5vTN7ZwwAPqYnT7wPw4Xtq0cZUXuwUhUNAE9/ME624v 9uZ2vSsOduyEe1RCYK543QZqi80SHnYfGEEDlhTiis6WHK31c+CkQBG4LzJfxdKc8VXY 8qff+fwHpCCDr3RFWoyN8g36XAQwBBuR72ciO/Aa/ygQA8iJ0ax79gM4nCAAEmbZgkDq G20tUETL/xLjVnmuc+SDOhj8yc7gTwjkDvRtEgoOcd1BySfGdIaepp8TNOuBuyhUtanf LhwmigTdyEDVJQuqMDW20UeDMTGApxwumB31ePZ4d7rfvUT1GILZ8QP4Ro7WePx6VQLd SesQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWzqiJuHcTTnVyJw2nnLQxU5g3/DD3Q23W1zAymoHpt4zouyDU f/Ny4F0VKPqTXgjv16yASS+5kBYvtL7F7hCNZU241dclYH42gT5quLKsPazLgg59NjXxWLEzA7w tKRcHCKI8/rQzzxe6TFU= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3772:: with SMTP id a47mr784745uae.53.1573032107950; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:21:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxN4Wmif1xXxoqB4rvX0HNT69TOlnnlq4lg0ZDzbHIebFXj/GLYSARfPDbicXKqAFuYLXR/CcCBHdb0FuFDVtk= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3772:: with SMTP id a47mr784724uae.53.1573032107614; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:21:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1572967458-16487-1-git-send-email-mdr@ashroe.eu> <1582816.H2LZHI4QzJ@xps> <2325188.Q6BSOo8498@xps> In-Reply-To: <2325188.Q6BSOo8498@xps> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:21:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon , Ray Kinsella Cc: dev , Stephen Hemminger , Bruce Richardson , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Olivier Matz , Neil Horman , Maxime Coquelin , "Mcnamara, John" , "Kovacevic, Marko" , Hemant Agrawal , Kevin Traynor , Aaron Conole Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/4] doc: changes to abi policy introducing major abi versions 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" On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:06 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > >> +Libraries marked as ``experimental`` are entirely not considered part of an ABI > > >> +version, and may change without warning at any time. Experimental libraries > > >> +always have a major version of ``0`` to indicate they exist outside of > > >> +ABI Versioning, with the minor version incremented with each ABI change > > >> +to library. > > > > > > It means not all libraries will have the same ABI version. > > > It is contrary of "ABI version is managed at a project level", > > > and I don't see a real benefit of a different version number. > > > > There is a benefit, major version 0 is a very clear indication that > > the library exists outside of ABI management. > > A library isn't in the ABI, until it is in the ABI - an then it gets > > added to the major version number. The user must already set ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API when using api from such a library. This is visible to him when developping. On the contrary a 0 ABIVER is an (almost) internal thing. > > > > > Anyway, some experimental functions can live inside a library > > > with a stable ABI version number > > > > True, but if an entire library is experimental - let's be crystal > > clear about that. Having this special case means that the library soname will contain a .0. Won't it prevent us from having two versions of dpdk installed? -- David Marchand