Re: [ANNOUNCE] libgpiod v2.2

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 1:54 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 08:17:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 6:25 PM Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Dienstag, 22. Oktober 2024 13:16:17 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Bartosz
> > > Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > I'm announcing the release of libgpiod v2.2.
> > > >
> > > > This is a big update for libgpiod bringing in the D-Bus daemon and its
> > > > command-line client, GLib bindings with GObject-introspection and a
> > > > slew of other updates and improvements. The detailed changelog can be
> > > > found in the NEWS file.
> > > >
> > > > The goal of the D-Bus API is to address the concerns about the lack of
> > > > persistence of GPIO state when the process that requested it exits.
> > > > Now the state can be stored inside the GPIO manager with which clients
> > > > can interact using a well known protocol.
> > > >
> > > > The release tarball and the git tree can be found over at kernel.org[1][2].
> > > >
> > > > Bartosz
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/software/libs/libgpiod/
> > > > [2] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/libgpiod/libgpiod.git
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Bartosz!
> > >
> > > I'm noticing while packaging for Alpine that the file name of the installed
> > > lib changed from libgpiod.so.3.1.2 in v2.1.3 to libgpiod.so.3.1.1 in v2.2 - so
> > > essentially it jumped back.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing this is not on purpose and while I don't think it should cause
> > > issues in the distro, I wanted to make you aware.
> > >
> >
> > Everytime I do a release, I bump the libtool ABI numbers as suggested
> > here[1] depending on how the code evolved between the versions.
> >
> > I guess I bumped the revision everytime new fixes landed and were
> > released in v2.1.x stable branch but for master I only did it once
> > when releasing v2.2.
> >
>
> If the 2.1.x branch is to continue to be supported then the 2.2 branch
> should've gone with ABI v3.2.0 to provide space for subsequent 2.1.x
> releases.
> If 2.1.x is finalised and merged into 2.2 then it needed to be bumped past
> the last 2.1.x, so v3.1.3.
>
> > I'm not sure what exactly should be done with that. I can of course
> > set the libgpiod ABI to v2.1.4 in v2.2.1 bugfix release if that
> > doesn't cause any issues but it doesn't really feel right.
> >
>
> You mean v3.1.4 for the ABI, right??  Otherwise it definitely doesn't
> feel right ;-).
>

Yes, of course!

> There is no need to skip over v3.1.3 since you haven't used it yet.
> As I see it, your options are v3.1.3 or v3.2.0, depdending on whether
> 2.1.x is considered a dead branch.
>

I'd go with v3.1.3 as this reflects what happened in the libgpiod
shared object - there are no new interfaces so it makes no sense to
bump the age. I also don't plan on supporting the v2.1.x branch
anymore so v3.1.3 makes the most sense.

I'll address it in git for the inevitable v2.2.1 release.

Bart