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 ECA2DA054F; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0ECC1D8CD; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496711C012 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:42:22 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Feb 2020 01:42:21 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,456,1574150400"; d="scan'208";a="228685819" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.251.88.201]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Feb 2020 01:42:19 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:42:16 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: ray.kinsella@intel.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, bluca@debian.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, ktraynor@redhat.com, dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20200218094216.GB875@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <44659287.fMDQidcC6G@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44659287.fMDQidcC6G@xps> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) 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" 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. /Bruce