SHORT VERSION: We broke ABI from the 1.4 series to the v1.5 series. I propose changing all the libtool .so version numbers as shown below to enforce that break. Can someone sanity check this?
Index: VERSION =================================================================== --- VERSION (revision 23242) +++ VERSION (working copy) @@ -79,12 +79,12 @@ # Version numbers are described in the Libtool current:revision:age # format. -libmpi_so_version=0:2:0 -libmpi_cxx_so_version=0:0:0 -libmpi_f77_so_version=0:0:0 -libmpi_f90_so_version=0:0:0 -libopen_rte_so_version=0:0:0 -libopen_pal_so_version=0:0:0 +libmpi_so_version=1:0:0 +libmpi_cxx_so_version=1:0:0 +libmpi_f77_so_version=1:0:0 +libmpi_f90_so_version=1:0:0 +libopen_rte_so_version=1:0:0 +libopen_pal_so_version=1:0:0 # "Common" components install standalone libraries that are run-time # linked by one or more components. So they need to be versioned as @@ -92,5 +92,5 @@ # components-don't-affect-the-build-system abstraction. -libmca_common_sm_so_version=1:0:0 -libmca_common_mx_so_version=0:0:0 -libmca_common_portals_so_version=0:0:0 +libmca_common_sm_so_version=2:0:0 +libmca_common_mx_so_version=1:0:0 +libmca_common_portals_so_version=1:0:0 MORE DETAILS: libopen_rte.so now wholly includes libopen_pal.so, and libmpi.so wholly includes libopen_rte.so (and therefore also libopen_pa.so). This was done for complex reasons -- the quick explanation is that is sucks because it makes us break ABI right now, but it puts us in a better position for ABI compatibility in the future. I wish that we had figured this out back at v1.3.2 when we introduced ABI compatibility, but we didn't -- so here we are. Cope. To enforce this ABI break, I propose setting the libtool version numbers of all of our shared libraries to 1:0:0. This means that apps linked against v1.5 libmpi.so will *NOT* be able to use libmpi.so from the v1.3 or v1.4 series. They will have to relink (at a minimum). Resetting *all* the library numbers to 1:0:0 is probably overkill (e.g., there's probably little gained by resetting the common libraries to 1:0:0), but it seems like an "ok" thing to do -- reset all the numbers across the board for minimum confusion. Can someone sanity check my rationale here? I'm not tied to this scheme; it just seems simple and, while probably being a bit overly broad, makes the change easy to describe and consistent. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
