From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] doc: clean ABI/API policy guide
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 09:03:53 +0100
Message-ID: <1545293033.9718.12.camel@debian.org>
References: <20181219125253.77398-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>, Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>,
 Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, John McNamara
 <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com
 [209.85.221.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361951B99A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 09:03:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id t6so679871wrr.12
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:03:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20181219125253.77398-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 12:52 +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Application
> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 \-> LibA.old
> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 \-> LibB.new -> LibA.new
> +
> +That is a conflict which can be avoided by setting
> ``CONFIG_RTE_MAJOR_ABI``.
> +If set, the value of ``CONFIG_RTE_MAJOR_ABI`` overwrites all -
> otherwise per
> +library - versions defined in the libraries ``LIBABIVER``.
> +An example might be ``CONFIG_RTE_MAJOR_ABI=3D16.11`` which will make
> all libraries
> +``librte<?>.so.16.11`` instead of ``librte<?>.so.<LIBABIVER>``.

This is not related to your reorganisation, but to solve this problem
properly should we start considering ABI bumps as "sticky", so that in
the example above _both_ libA and libB would get an ABI bump?

--=20
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi