On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 1. Downstreams to insert Major version into soname > > Distributions could insert the DPDK major version (like 16.11) into the > > soname and package names. A common example of this is libboost [5]. > > That would perfectly allow 16.07.<LIBABIVER> to coexist with > > 16.11.<LIBABIVER> even if for a given library LIBABIVER did not change. > > Yet it would mean that anything depending on the old library will have to > > be recompiled to pick up the new code, even if it depends on an ABI that > is > > still present in the new release. > > Also - not a technical reason - but it is clearly more work to force > update > > all dependencies and clean out old packages for every release. > > Actually this isn't exactly what I proposed during the summit. Just > keep it simple and fix the ABI version of all libraries at 16.11.0. > This is a proven approach and has been used for years with different > libraries. Since there was no other response I'll try to wrap up. Yes #1 also is my preferred solution at the moment. We tried with individual following the tracking of LIBABIVER upstream but as outlined before we hit too many issues. I discussed it in the deb_dpdk group which acked as well to use this as general approach. The other options have too obvious flaws as I listed on my initial report and - thanks btw - you added a few more. @Bruce - sorry I don't think dropping config options is the solution. Yet my suggestion does not prevent you from doing so. > You could easily do this independently of us upstream > fixing the ABI problems. I agree, but I'd like to suggest the mechanism I want to implement. An ack by upstream for the Feature to set such a major ABI would be great. Actually since it is optional and can help more people integrating DPDK getting it accepted upstream be even better. I'll send a patch in reply to this thread later today that implements what I have in mind. -- Christian Ehrhardt Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd
