Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] build: fix soname for experimental libraries

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

18/02/2020 10:40, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:44:02AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Because of an original mistake in ABI numbering,
> > and a temporary workaround for ABI 20,
> > for experimental libs, numbering would lead to consider
> > 	ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0
> > 
> > Before this patch:
> > 
> > DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> > DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.2001 and soname 0.201
> > Numbers are increasing, that's fine.
> > For the next major ABI, back to normal numbering:
> > DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
> > Numbers are decreasing!
> > 
> > After this patch:
> > 
> > DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> > DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.201 and soname 0.20
> > DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
> > 
> > Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > ---
> >  config/meson.build | 8 ++++----
> >  mk/rte.lib.mk      | 4 ++--
> >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
> > index 6c46767e3e..e7cd74e2c2 100644
> > --- a/config/meson.build
> > +++ b/config/meson.build
> > @@ -27,12 +27,12 @@ abi_version = run_command(find_program('cat', 'more'),
> >  # and the filename suffix as 0.majorminor versions,
> >  # e.g. v20.1 => librte_stable.so.20.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
> >  #    sonames => librte_stable.so.20, librte_experimental.so.0.20
> > -# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.2001
> > -#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.200
> > +# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
> > +#      sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.20
> >  abi_va = abi_version.split('.')
> >  stable_so_version = abi_va.length() == 2 ? abi_va[0] : abi_va[0] + '.' + abi_va[1]
> > -experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join(abi_va)
> > -experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join(stable_so_version.split('.'))
> > +experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0], abi_va[2]])
> > +experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0]])
> >  
> 
> My concern about this is that it will break, or rather need to be changed
> again for the 20.11 release. While I see the numbering as not-ideal in
> terms of version numbers, the existing scheme was originally designed to
> work with either 3-digit or 2-digit version numbers.

It could be improved to work with 2-digit too.