Hi Jean, On 16. 12. 18 12:43, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Ondřej, > > You have recently released lm-sensors 3.5.0 with a new soname for > libsensors: > > -LIBMAINVER := 4 > -LIBMINORVER := 4.0 > +LIBMAINVER := 5 > +LIBMINORVER := 0.0 > > -#define SENSORS_API_VERSION 0x440 > +#define SENSORS_API_VERSION 0x500 > > This is declaring the new library as incompatible with the previous > version, meaning that distributions will have to build and ship both > libsensors4 and libsensors5 for a long time until all applications have > been updated and rebuilt to link with the new library. This is a > significant effort for the whole community and should only be done when > necessary. I thought there was an ABI change, which would warrant a soname bump. Or am I wrong in thinking that? I was mistaken however and I'm sorry about that, there was no ABI change. I don't see why distributions would have to ship two versions of the library. The *name* of the library didn't change, it's still libsensors (not libsensors4 or libsensors5). [~/git/lm-sensors]$ make ... [~/git/lm-sensors]$ ls lib/ | grep libsensors.so libsensors.so libsensors.so.5 libsensors.so.5.0.0 So all distros need to do is rebuild dependent packages. No changes to other packages should be required. Am I missing something? Thanks. Ondra > > In this specific case, I can't see what warranted such a change of > major library version change. From > lm-sensors/doc/developers/release_checklist: > > Remember: update main number when interface changes, minor if new > functionality is added, and patch if only bugs are fixed. > > In this case I can only see new functionality added, there is no > interface change. Therefore the correct value for SENSORS_API_VERSION > was 0x450, not 0x500. This would avoid the parallel maintenance and > installation of 2 versions of the library for several years to come. > > Would you consider quickly releasing lm-sensors 3.5.1 with the proper > library version number, to save all that work to all application > authors/maintainers and distribution package maintainers? > > Thanks, >
