Re: complex versioning scenario

[Steffen Sledz <sledz@dresearch-fe.de>]

On 24.03.2014 16:15, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 03:22:35PM +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
>> On 24.03.2014 13:53, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:49 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
>>>> On 24.03.2014 13:35, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:16 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
>>>>>> We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At the moment the recipes look like this:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------------ libfoo_git.bb ------------- PR = "r7" PE = "2" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------------ app_git.bb ---------------- DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..." PR = "r10" PE = "1" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.
>>>> 
>>>> To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.
>>>> 
>>>> But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(
>>>> 
>>>> Steffen
>>>> 
>>>> BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?
>>> 
>>> debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.
>>> 
>>> Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.
>> 
>> But where does it come from? A bb variable?
> 
> SONAME header in library
> 
> so if you're using debian.bbclass and change ABI then you should just increase major version in SONAME (that way your foo will rdepend on libfoo0 until it's rebuilt against newer libfoo1).

Thanx, this was the decisive hint.

I've increased the version in the SONAME header of the library and the result is a libfoo1 package. :)

But now i hit the next problem. The following rootfs stage results in this error:

---------------> snip <-----------------
| Collected errors:
|  * satisfy_dependencies_for: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for app:
|  *    libfoo0 (>= gitr101+somehash) *
---------------> snap <-----------------

Should the new build of libfoo1 trigger a new compile of all packages with DEPENDS containing libfoo?

-- 
DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:sledz@dresearch-fe.de
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058