Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/4] doc: changes to abi policy introducing major abi versions

[David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:06 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> 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