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

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 2/18/2020 10:36 AM, Kinsella, Ray wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday 18 February 2020 09:50
>> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
>> Cc: Kinsella, Ray <ray.kinsella@intel.com>; nhorman@tuxdriver.com;
>> bluca@debian.org; david.marchand@redhat.com; ktraynor@redhat.com;
>> dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: ABI version of experimental libraries
>>
>> 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).
>>
> 
> So while experimental library version numbers are not "important".
> I do agree with Thomas they should be sane, increase and should have a consistent format.
> 
> Should we always pad them to 4 places?
> i.e.
> 
> DPDK 19.11 ... 0.20 (needs to remain 0.20).
> DPDK 20.02 ... 0.2001
> DPDK 20.11 ... 0.2100
> DPDK 21.02 ... 0.2101 
> 
> Make sense?
> 

What about following:

DPDK version  ABI version  soname       library name
------------  -----------  ------       ------------
DPDK 19.11     20.0        .so.0.200    .so.0.200
DPDK 20.02     20.0.1      .so.0.200.1  .so.0.200.1
DPDK 20.05     20.0.2      .so.0.200.2  .so.0.200.2
DPDK 20.11     21.0        .so.0.210    .so.0.210
DPDK 21.02     21.1        .so.0.211    .so.0.211

This let us turn back to sane versions when soname fixed in 20.11.

Also I think for experimental libraries soname should NOT be same in minor
versions, otherwise it can create false impression that it is ABI compatible
between two minor versions.

I will reply the patch to this email.