On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 10:52 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:52:49PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > I agree. Also, I realize that we've bumped the library version too > > often in the past. If we add a function, we don't need to bump. > > Because > > a program that needs the added function will require e.g. > > foo@LIBMULTIPATH_10.0.0, and this will fail for a library that > > doesn't > > export foo (which is what we want). Likewise for function deletion > > - a > > program that calls the deleted function will fail to link with the > > updated library. OTOH, programs that use this version of the ABI > > *without* using the functions which are added or removed are > > unaffected > > by the addition / removal. > > > > The only case in which the ABI version must be bumped is when we > > have > > changed functions or data structures. > > > > Furthermore, I believe now that the habit (which I introduced) to > > list > > added functions at the end of the .version files, with comments > > indicating when they were added, is useless. We should rather keep > > the > > .version file ordered alphabetically. > > So we not use the minor version anymore? Perhaps we'll encounter another use case for it, or we find a flaw in my reasoning above. I wouldn't remove the digit. We could e.g. bump the minor version in an official release if there are only minor ABI changes wrt the previous official release. Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
