The question: is do we want to maintain a stable ABI?
Given the number of constraints that we already impose ourselves, I think I'm -1 on establishing a stable ABI for now. So we should probably bump the SO number on each minor release. Regards Antoine. Le 03/07/2019 à 22:41, Uwe L. Korn a écrit : > I've documented that some time ago: > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/docs/source/developers/cpp.rst > > I actually wanted to add this to the build but we were breaking the ABI so > often that it would have never been green. > > Uwe > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, at 9:52 PM, Sutou Kouhei wrote: >> Ruby uses ABI Compliance Checker >> https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/ >> with a small script: >> >> https://github.com/ruby/chkbuild/blob/master/abi-checker.rb >> >> There is the official Debian package for it: >> >> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=abi-compliance-checker >> >> In <20c3b917-6f80-ca14-669d-f89e7ec7f...@python.org> >> "Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0" on Wed, 3 Jul 2019 >> 09:59:15 +0200, >> Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Do we have any reliable tool to check for ABI breakage? >>> >>> >>> Le 03/07/2019 à 02:57, Sutou Kouhei a écrit : >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We'll release 0.14.0 soon. Then we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" at >>>> master. If we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT", C++ build is failed: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/CMakeLists.txt#L47 >>>> >>>> message(FATAL_ERROR "Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow >>>> 1.0+") >>>> >>>> So we need to consider how to generate SO version for 1.0.0 >>>> as the first task for 1.0.0. >>>> >>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2522 >>>> for the current SO versioning. >>>> >>>> >>>> If we may break ABI compatibility each minor version up >>>> release ("Y" is increased in "X.Y.Z"), we should include >>>> minor version into SO major version (100, 101 and 102 in the >>>> following examples): >>>> >>>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0 >>>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0 >>>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0 >>>> >>>> If we don't break ABI compatibility each minor version up >>>> release, we just use the same SO major version (100 in the >>>> following examples) in 1.0.0: >>>> >>>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0 >>>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.100.1.0 >>>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.100.2.0 >>>> >>>> >>>> I choose 1XX as SO major version because we already use >>>> 10-14 for SO major version. We should not use them in the >>>> future to avoid confusion. So I choose 1XX in the above >>>> examples. >>>> >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -- >>>> kou >>>> >>
