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 >>
