On Tue 23 Jun 2020 11:36, Chris Vine <vine35792...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:05:51 +0200 > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> Chris Vine <vine35792...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:04:03 +0200 >> > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> We are delighted to announce GNU Guile release 3.0.3, the third bug-fix >> >> release of the new 3.0 stable series. This release represents 170 >> >> commits by 17 people since version 3.0.2. See the NEWS excerpt that >> >> follows for full details. >> > [snip] >> > >> > This has a libguile so ABI jump from libguile-3.0.so.1 to >> > libguile-3.0.so.3, which breaks my binaries linked to libguile. Is that >> > normal for a micro update in the stable release series and if so can >> > there be some warning in the announcement? >> >> Yes, it means you need to relink those binaries. >> >> I was hesitant about the SONAME: the ABI jump was unnecessary unless in >> ‘--disable-deprecated’ builds. I erred on the side of cautiousness: >> >> >> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/commit/?id=5d052c87bd8f0fd894e67f0bebd4fa6f6160d83c > > Hi, > > Ah right. There must have been two SO breaks between guile-3.0.2 and > guile-3.0.3. > > It's a nuisance having SO bumps on micro releases and I wonder if that > could be included in the announcement so that you don't first notice it > when stuff fails to run? I think I agree with Chris. The intention is certainly to have a stable ABI within a stable series, so 3.0.3 should have the same CURRENT. It's certainly correct that a --disable-deprecated 3.0.3 build has a different ABI than 3.0.2, and if that were what we were looking at, we would indeed need the CURRENT version bump; but I think the premise is wrong: we do *not* have a stable ABI in --disable-deprecated builds, and we never have. Otherwise we wouldn't ever be able to deprecate anything within a stable series. WDYT about a quick 3.0.4 that restores the CURRENT ? Cheers, Andy