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 > >> >
