On 12/11/2019 11:11 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:04:01AM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 10:26 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> The soname for each stable ABI version should be just the ABI version
>>> major
>>> number without the minor number. Unfortunately both major and minor
>>> were
>>> used causing version 20.1 to be incompatible with 20.0.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the issue by switching from 2-part to 3-part ABI
>>> version
>>> numbers so that we can keep 20.0 as soname and using the final digits
>>> to
>>> identify the 20.x releases which are ABI compatible. This requires
>>> changes
>>> to both make and meson builds to handle the three-digit version and
>>> shrink
>>> it to 2-digit for soname.
>>>
>>> Fixes: cba806e07d6f ("build: change ABI versioning to global")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <
>>> tho...@monjalon.net
>>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <
>>> bruce.richard...@intel.com
>>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> This patch contains an alternative fix to that implied by the
>>> previous patches:
>>> http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/63726/
>>>
>>> http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/63728/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> ABI_VERSION | 2 +-
>>> drivers/meson.build | 4 ++--
>>> lib/meson.build | 4 ++--
>>> mk/rte.lib.mk | 5 ++++-
>>> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> Acked-by: Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>
>>
>> Thank you! I've set a reminder in my calendar for September to revert
>> it :-)
>>
> Lol, don't forget to put another reminder to fix things properly then too.
> :-)
>
> We also still need consensus in the community as to whether to take this
> approach or to do a re-spin of 19.11. At this point, I'm swayed by your
> arguments and think we should keep compatibility at the cost of a little
> pain and weirdness in our .so filenames.
>
I was leaning towards 19.11.1 but Luca was convincing :) and I agree he has a
point, so no objection to this change from me.
