On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 02:05:44PM +0000, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>
>
> On 12/12/2019 13:58, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 11:14 +0000, Ray Kinsella wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/12/2019 11:11, 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.
> >>>
> >>> /Bruce
> >>>
> >>
> >> My vote would be for a respin.
> >> We don't yet know what challenges the weirdness or pain will be.
> >> Why we would bother for the sake of a respin?
> >>
> >> Ray K
> >
> > We already uploaded 19.11 to Debian last week, which means the tarball
> > is in the archive and it's hashsummed and signed:
> >
> > http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/dpdk/dpdk_19.11.orig.tar.xz
> >
> > (it's in experimental, but the archive is the same)
> >
> > A respin at this point would make my life not impossible, but quite
> > difficult.
> >
> > IMHO respins are acceptable within a few hours - two weeks later it's
> > no longer a respin, it's a new version :-)
> >
>
> Understood, we are stretching the acceptable terms of a re-spin.
>
> If the version that is in the archive fundamentally broken, what are you
> going to do.
> This is not a relatively easy circumstance that we can simply fix it with an
> apt-get update.
>
> Is there precedent for pulling and re-releasing something that is broken in
> this way?
>
The thing is that our existing package is not fundamentally broken, it just
has a wrong ABI version, which we can work around with a non-massive
amount of work. Given we have a fix that avoids any respinning, I see no
reason not just to go with it, and keep our ABI compatibility promise.
And I, too, have already uploaded a new build recipe, including package
checksums, to the FreeBSD ports collection. Respinning would be awkward
there too.
/Bruce
