On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:06 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > >> +Libraries marked as ``experimental`` are entirely not considered part > > >> of an ABI > > >> +version, and may change without warning at any time. Experimental > > >> libraries > > >> +always have a major version of ``0`` to indicate they exist outside of > > >> +ABI Versioning, with the minor version incremented with each ABI change > > >> +to library. > > > > > > It means not all libraries will have the same ABI version. > > > It is contrary of "ABI version is managed at a project level", > > > and I don't see a real benefit of a different version number. > > > > There is a benefit, major version 0 is a very clear indication that > > the library exists outside of ABI management. > > A library isn't in the ABI, until it is in the ABI - an then it gets > > added to the major version number.
The user must already set ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API when using api from such a library. This is visible to him when developping. On the contrary a 0 ABIVER is an (almost) internal thing. > > > > > Anyway, some experimental functions can live inside a library > > > with a stable ABI version number > > > > True, but if an entire library is experimental - let's be crystal > > clear about that. Having this special case means that the library soname will contain a .0. Won't it prevent us from having two versions of dpdk installed? -- David Marchand
