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 E0043A054F; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:50:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD321D8CC; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:50:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F621D732 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:50:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B3F21F32; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 04:50:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 04:50:13 -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=aTFXubA23jWhYK/3D27hxUIusJpSR0W3yoqffWBfK3w=; b=rmjw5IKnTRQR 9O2w7qXsSyBj1p+YqgwTSgmsX8acdmRsJrF9z+3u1GmbMYopLO828WurJdnZSMGO sPf4CFw9Rry+Ug9xPP0oELGJGHTbnfhO5TmrMTm6wAkm3H9/6z6oEsqcNyChkuwi MP/UD5ESxZa5Tc1U8YmolBgtJshZqsQ= 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=aTFXubA23jWhYK/3D27hxUIusJpSR0W3yoqffWBfK 3w=; b=QBgofPsCcYOB8J6t2fvAMAyLu9ohaWLj9Dl+1+C3mR6zss6yX8C5cm+BL Bl2VDBtLg9dkAEH8KcMkD6RaDbztiErv65vfrRxxZtaP7R0icJX/pYgaucib7USw EXwZNEycuC5LHmC7loFFyoWsZcKkI250OKgVwfxKjy1uHsYB79/pt62j3eFI7hgc XGRfmrbqvCZBp7SIhR5d3sWGUZofvC5VdhZJcpNLUEUZMkseVut+Ju0oIB4FtZkg rZc4XVeCBG8PkfLB6lZ12PFLZCyScRxUEiBXn1ZFHBMMzev/akZ4MG8Vk3kv1RGE +47SVycUxh7oSKD8+FB4RkVOh24Ug== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrjeekgddtlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf 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 B472C3060BD1; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 04:50:11 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: ray.kinsella@intel.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, bluca@debian.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, ktraynor@redhat.com, dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:50:09 +0100 Message-ID: <4488034.BEx9A2HvPv@xps> In-Reply-To: <20200218094216.GB875@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <44659287.fMDQidcC6G@xps> <20200218094216.GB875@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> 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" 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).