* btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning @ 2020-09-24 1:48 Neal Gompa 2020-10-02 17:18 ` David Sterba 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Neal Gompa @ 2020-09-24 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Btrfs BTRFS; +Cc: David Sterba Hey all, I've been working on a set of patches to synchronize the version numbers across everything produced by btrfs-progs and add pkgconfig files to make it easier for software to consume the libraries, but as I worked through it, I started realizing that btrfs-progs actually has *two* distinctly separate projects in one package. This is somewhat problematic since it makes properly representing that versioning in the packages I ship in Fedora rather difficult. Would it be possible to consider splitting libbtrfsutil into its own project with its own releases? If not, is there a reason that we *can't* synchronize the versions across btrfs-progs, libbtrfs, and libbtrfsutil? We could still make sure that the library sonames are versioned properly, but having the user-facing versions actually sync up makes life a lot easier... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning 2020-09-24 1:48 btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning Neal Gompa @ 2020-10-02 17:18 ` David Sterba 2020-10-02 20:56 ` Neal Gompa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: David Sterba @ 2020-10-02 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Neal Gompa; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS, David Sterba On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:48:44PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > I've been working on a set of patches to synchronize the version > numbers across everything produced by btrfs-progs and add pkgconfig > files to make it easier for software to consume the libraries, but as > I worked through it, I started realizing that btrfs-progs actually has > *two* distinctly separate projects in one package. Yes, we ended up doing it like that as it makes development easier. The util library is there for 3rd party tools to use but otherwise is's internally used by btrfs-progs too. Synchronizing btrfs-progs development that would need new interfaces from the util library would require separate release and deployment. > This is somewhat problematic since it makes properly representing that > versioning in the packages I ship in Fedora rather difficult. > > Would it be possible to consider splitting libbtrfsutil into its own > project with its own releases? There's probably not a hard reason why to have them both in one project, but like it is now is saving my time spent on annoying tasks. > If not, is there a reason that we > *can't* synchronize the versions across btrfs-progs, libbtrfs, and > libbtrfsutil? We could still make sure that the library sonames are > versioned properly, but having the user-facing versions actually sync > up makes life a lot easier... I'm a bit lost in which versions are not in sync. The shared library version is an ABI and that changes only when new symbols appear. The whole project release versions follow the kernel scheme. So what are you suggesting? Eg. that libbtrfsutil should not be 5.9 but follow the soname version which is 1.2.0? Can this be solved on the packaging side by 3 projects that are built from the same sources but produce only a subset of all the built files? This is slightly inefficient as you'd have 3 copies of btrfs-progs.tar but otherwise it's one time job, comparted to me having to update and deploy 2 projects just to progress with progs development? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning 2020-10-02 17:18 ` David Sterba @ 2020-10-02 20:56 ` Neal Gompa 2020-10-12 22:49 ` David Sterba 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Neal Gompa @ 2020-10-02 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dsterba, Neal Gompa, Btrfs BTRFS, David Sterba On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:19 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:48:44PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > I've been working on a set of patches to synchronize the version > > numbers across everything produced by btrfs-progs and add pkgconfig > > files to make it easier for software to consume the libraries, but as > > I worked through it, I started realizing that btrfs-progs actually has > > *two* distinctly separate projects in one package. > > Yes, we ended up doing it like that as it makes development easier. The > util library is there for 3rd party tools to use but otherwise is's > internally used by btrfs-progs too. Synchronizing btrfs-progs > development that would need new interfaces from the util library would > require separate release and deployment. > > > This is somewhat problematic since it makes properly representing that > > versioning in the packages I ship in Fedora rather difficult. > > > > Would it be possible to consider splitting libbtrfsutil into its own > > project with its own releases? > > There's probably not a hard reason why to have them both in one project, > but like it is now is saving my time spent on annoying tasks. > That's fine with me. > > If not, is there a reason that we > > *can't* synchronize the versions across btrfs-progs, libbtrfs, and > > libbtrfsutil? We could still make sure that the library sonames are > > versioned properly, but having the user-facing versions actually sync > > up makes life a lot easier... > > I'm a bit lost in which versions are not in sync. The shared library > version is an ABI and that changes only when new symbols appear. The > whole project release versions follow the kernel scheme. So what are you > suggesting? Eg. that libbtrfsutil should not be 5.9 but follow the > soname version which is 1.2.0? > No, I'm suggesting the other way around. The libbtrfsutil "public version" (that is, not the ABI version) would be synchronized with the kernel version like the rest of btrfs-progs. Right now it's not, evidenced by python-btrfsutil giving me 1.2.0 instead of 5.9. Basically, I want to add pkgconfig files and fix the version emitted by the Python metadata to use the project version rather than whatever soname version is used. The soname version would still be preserved and work as a way to track the ABI changes, but everything that reads metadata would get the btrfs-progs parent version consistently. > Can this be solved on the packaging side by 3 projects that are built > from the same sources but produce only a subset of all the built files? > This is slightly inefficient as you'd have 3 copies of btrfs-progs.tar > but otherwise it's one time job, comparted to me having to update and > deploy 2 projects just to progress with progs development? It _could_, but I'd rather avoid that if I can, because it makes keeping everything up to date painful. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning 2020-10-02 20:56 ` Neal Gompa @ 2020-10-12 22:49 ` David Sterba 2020-10-13 0:16 ` Neal Gompa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: David Sterba @ 2020-10-12 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Neal Gompa; +Cc: dsterba, Btrfs BTRFS, David Sterba On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:56:24PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:19 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:48:44PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > If not, is there a reason that we > > > *can't* synchronize the versions across btrfs-progs, libbtrfs, and > > > libbtrfsutil? We could still make sure that the library sonames are > > > versioned properly, but having the user-facing versions actually sync > > > up makes life a lot easier... > > > > I'm a bit lost in which versions are not in sync. The shared library > > version is an ABI and that changes only when new symbols appear. The > > whole project release versions follow the kernel scheme. So what are you > > suggesting? Eg. that libbtrfsutil should not be 5.9 but follow the > > soname version which is 1.2.0? > > No, I'm suggesting the other way around. The libbtrfsutil "public > version" (that is, not the ABI version) would be synchronized with the > kernel version like the rest of btrfs-progs. Right now it's not, > evidenced by python-btrfsutil giving me 1.2.0 instead of 5.9. Oh, so this sounds easier than I thought. If the "main" verions is derived from progs, then it's just the python-btrfsutil that needs to be fixed: libbtrfsutil/python/setup.py: 28 def get_version(): 29 with open('../btrfsutil.h', 'r') as f: 30 btrfsutil_h = f.read() 31 major = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_MAJOR ([0-9]+)$', 32 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) 33 minor = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_MINOR ([0-9]+)$', 34 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) 35 patch = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_PATCH ([0-9]+)$', 36 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) 37 return major + '.' + minor + '.' + patch IOW, the python package version is derived from the library .so version. > Basically, I want to add pkgconfig files and fix the version emitted > by the Python metadata to use the project version rather than whatever > soname version is used. The soname version would still be preserved > and work as a way to track the ABI changes, but everything that reads > metadata would get the btrfs-progs parent version consistently. And with something using the VERSION file instead it should do what you expect, right? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning 2020-10-12 22:49 ` David Sterba @ 2020-10-13 0:16 ` Neal Gompa 2020-10-19 18:32 ` David Sterba 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Neal Gompa @ 2020-10-13 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dsterba, Neal Gompa, Btrfs BTRFS, David Sterba On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:51 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:56:24PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:19 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:48:44PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > If not, is there a reason that we > > > > *can't* synchronize the versions across btrfs-progs, libbtrfs, and > > > > libbtrfsutil? We could still make sure that the library sonames are > > > > versioned properly, but having the user-facing versions actually sync > > > > up makes life a lot easier... > > > > > > I'm a bit lost in which versions are not in sync. The shared library > > > version is an ABI and that changes only when new symbols appear. The > > > whole project release versions follow the kernel scheme. So what are you > > > suggesting? Eg. that libbtrfsutil should not be 5.9 but follow the > > > soname version which is 1.2.0? > > > > No, I'm suggesting the other way around. The libbtrfsutil "public > > version" (that is, not the ABI version) would be synchronized with the > > kernel version like the rest of btrfs-progs. Right now it's not, > > evidenced by python-btrfsutil giving me 1.2.0 instead of 5.9. > > Oh, so this sounds easier than I thought. If the "main" verions is > derived from progs, then it's just the python-btrfsutil that needs to be > fixed: > > libbtrfsutil/python/setup.py: > > 28 def get_version(): > 29 with open('../btrfsutil.h', 'r') as f: > 30 btrfsutil_h = f.read() > 31 major = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_MAJOR ([0-9]+)$', > 32 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) > 33 minor = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_MINOR ([0-9]+)$', > 34 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) > 35 patch = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_PATCH ([0-9]+)$', > 36 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) > 37 return major + '.' + minor + '.' + patch > > IOW, the python package version is derived from the library .so version. > > > Basically, I want to add pkgconfig files and fix the version emitted > > by the Python metadata to use the project version rather than whatever > > soname version is used. The soname version would still be preserved > > and work as a way to track the ABI changes, but everything that reads > > metadata would get the btrfs-progs parent version consistently. > > And with something using the VERSION file instead it should do what you > expect, right? Yeah, basically! This issue blocks me from enabling the Python bindings because version updates get weird and confusing... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning 2020-10-13 0:16 ` Neal Gompa @ 2020-10-19 18:32 ` David Sterba 2020-10-19 18:36 ` Neal Gompa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: David Sterba @ 2020-10-19 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Neal Gompa; +Cc: dsterba, Btrfs BTRFS, David Sterba On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:16:36PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:51 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:56:24PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:19 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:48:44PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > 33 minor = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_MINOR ([0-9]+)$', > > 34 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) > > 35 patch = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_PATCH ([0-9]+)$', > > 36 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) > > 37 return major + '.' + minor + '.' + patch > > > > IOW, the python package version is derived from the library .so version. > > > > > Basically, I want to add pkgconfig files and fix the version emitted > > > by the Python metadata to use the project version rather than whatever > > > soname version is used. The soname version would still be preserved > > > and work as a way to track the ABI changes, but everything that reads > > > metadata would get the btrfs-progs parent version consistently. > > > > And with something using the VERSION file instead it should do what you > > expect, right? > > Yeah, basically! This issue blocks me from enabling the Python > bindings because version updates get weird and confusing... So the python will now follow the package version. One thing I'm not sure about is the pkg-config .pc file for libbtrfsutil: is the Version: supposed to be the library ABI or the main package as well? Right now it's the ABI. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning 2020-10-19 18:32 ` David Sterba @ 2020-10-19 18:36 ` Neal Gompa 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Neal Gompa @ 2020-10-19 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dsterba, Neal Gompa, Btrfs BTRFS, David Sterba On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 2:34 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:16:36PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:51 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:56:24PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:19 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 09:48:44PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > 33 minor = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_MINOR ([0-9]+)$', > > > 34 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) > > > 35 patch = re.search(r'^#define BTRFS_UTIL_VERSION_PATCH ([0-9]+)$', > > > 36 btrfsutil_h, flags=re.MULTILINE).group(1) > > > 37 return major + '.' + minor + '.' + patch > > > > > > IOW, the python package version is derived from the library .so version. > > > > > > > Basically, I want to add pkgconfig files and fix the version emitted > > > > by the Python metadata to use the project version rather than whatever > > > > soname version is used. The soname version would still be preserved > > > > and work as a way to track the ABI changes, but everything that reads > > > > metadata would get the btrfs-progs parent version consistently. > > > > > > And with something using the VERSION file instead it should do what you > > > expect, right? > > > > Yeah, basically! This issue blocks me from enabling the Python > > bindings because version updates get weird and confusing... > > So the python will now follow the package version. One thing I'm not > sure about is the pkg-config .pc file for libbtrfsutil: is the Version: > supposed to be the library ABI or the main package as well? Right now > it's the ABI. Main package version too. That's the "user facing" version. Not the ABI version. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-19 18:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-09-24 1:48 btrfs-progs and libbtrfsutil versioning Neal Gompa 2020-10-02 17:18 ` David Sterba 2020-10-02 20:56 ` Neal Gompa 2020-10-12 22:49 ` David Sterba 2020-10-13 0:16 ` Neal Gompa 2020-10-19 18:32 ` David Sterba 2020-10-19 18:36 ` Neal Gompa
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).