On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:44:02AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Because of an original mistake in ABI numbering,
> and a temporary workaround for ABI 20,
> for experimental libs, numbering would lead to consider
> ABI 20.1 > ABI 21.0
>
> Before this patch:
>
> DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.2001 and soname 0.201
> Numbers are increasing, that's fine.
> For the next major ABI, back to normal numbering:
> DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
> Numbers are decreasing!
>
> After this patch:
>
> DPDK 19.11: ABI version 0.200 and soname 0.20
> DPDK 20.02: ABI version 0.201 and soname 0.20
> DPDK 20.11: ABI version 0.210 and soname 0.21
>
> Fixes: f26c2b39b271 ("build: fix soname info for 19.11 compatibility")
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> ---
> config/meson.build | 8 ++++----
> mk/rte.lib.mk | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
> index 6c46767e3e..e7cd74e2c2 100644
> --- a/config/meson.build
> +++ b/config/meson.build
> @@ -27,12 +27,12 @@ abi_version = run_command(find_program('cat', 'more'),
> # and the filename suffix as 0.majorminor versions,
> # e.g. v20.1 => librte_stable.so.20.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
> # sonames => librte_stable.so.20, librte_experimental.so.0.20
> -# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.2001
> -# sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.200
> +# e.g. v20.0.1 => librte_stable.so.20.0.1, librte_experimental.so.0.201
> +# sonames => librte_stable.so.20.0, librte_experimental.so.0.20
> abi_va = abi_version.split('.')
> stable_so_version = abi_va.length() == 2 ? abi_va[0] : abi_va[0] + '.' +
> abi_va[1]
> -experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join(abi_va)
> -experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join(stable_so_version.split('.'))
> +experimental_abi_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0], abi_va[2]])
> +experimental_so_version = '0.' + ''.join([abi_va[0]])
>
My concern about this is that it will break, or rather need to be changed
again for the 20.11 release. While I see the numbering as not-ideal in
terms of version numbers, the existing scheme was originally designed to
work with either 3-digit or 2-digit version numbers.
/Bruce
