You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@arrow.apache.org by Sutou Kouhei <ko...@clear-code.com> on 2019/07/03 00:57:34 UTC
[DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Hi,
We'll release 0.14.0 soon. Then we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" at
master. If we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT", C++ build is failed:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/CMakeLists.txt#L47
message(FATAL_ERROR "Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+")
So we need to consider how to generate SO version for 1.0.0
as the first task for 1.0.0.
See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2522
for the current SO versioning.
If we may break ABI compatibility each minor version up
release ("Y" is increased in "X.Y.Z"), we should include
minor version into SO major version (100, 101 and 102 in the
following examples):
* 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
* 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
* 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
If we don't break ABI compatibility each minor version up
release, we just use the same SO major version (100 in the
following examples) in 1.0.0:
* 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
* 1.1.0 -> libarrow.100.1.0
* 1.2.0 -> libarrow.100.2.0
I choose 1XX as SO major version because we already use
10-14 for SO major version. We should not use them in the
future to avoid confusion. So I choose 1XX in the above
examples.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
--
kou
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Francois Saint-Jacques <fs...@gmail.com>.
Sounds reasonable to me.
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 5:55 AM Sutou Kouhei <ko...@clear-code.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> No more opinions?
>
> If there are no more opinions, we'll use the current
> SO versioning schema committed by
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4801 for 1.0.0. The
> current versioning schema is the following:
>
> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
>
> I'll update .deb package names when we decide this.
>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> kou
>
> In <CA...@mail.gmail.com>
> "Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0" on Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:55:03 +0200,
> Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Created a PR with the versioning scheme described by @Kou.
> > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4801
> >
> > We can change later (but before the next release) to unblock
> > the failing CI builds.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:10 +0200
> >> Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Could We add a temporary solution and perhaps change the versioning
> >> schema
> >> > later?
> >> > I'm asking because all of our c++ based CI builds are failing now.
> >>
> >> Wow, thanks for pointing out.
> >> Indeed:
> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/arrow/builds/554118250
> >>
> >> """
> >> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:47 (message):
> >> Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+
> >> -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
> >> """
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Antoine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Sutou Kouhei <ko...@clear-code.com>.
Hi,
No more opinions?
If there are no more opinions, we'll use the current
SO versioning schema committed by
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4801 for 1.0.0. The
current versioning schema is the following:
* 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
* 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
* 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
I'll update .deb package names when we decide this.
Thanks,
--
kou
In <CA...@mail.gmail.com>
"Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0" on Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:55:03 +0200,
Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Created a PR with the versioning scheme described by @Kou.
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4801
>
> We can change later (but before the next release) to unblock
> the failing CI builds.
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:10 +0200
>> Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Could We add a temporary solution and perhaps change the versioning
>> schema
>> > later?
>> > I'm asking because all of our c++ based CI builds are failing now.
>>
>> Wow, thanks for pointing out.
>> Indeed:
>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/arrow/builds/554118250
>>
>> """
>> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:47 (message):
>> Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+
>> -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
>> """
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>.
Created a PR with the versioning scheme described by @Kou.
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4801
We can change later (but before the next release) to unblock
the failing CI builds.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:10 +0200
> Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Could We add a temporary solution and perhaps change the versioning
> schema
> > later?
> > I'm asking because all of our c++ based CI builds are failing now.
>
> Wow, thanks for pointing out.
> Indeed:
> https://travis-ci.org/apache/arrow/builds/554118250
>
> """
> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:47 (message):
> Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+
> -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
> """
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net>.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:50:10 +0200
Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could We add a temporary solution and perhaps change the versioning schema
> later?
> I'm asking because all of our c++ based CI builds are failing now.
Wow, thanks for pointing out.
Indeed:
https://travis-ci.org/apache/arrow/builds/554118250
"""
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:47 (message):
Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+
-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!
"""
Regards
Antoine.
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>.
Could We add a temporary solution and perhaps change the versioning schema
later?
I'm asking because all of our c++ based CI builds are failing now.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> The question: is do we want to maintain a stable ABI?
>
> Given the number of constraints that we already impose ourselves, I
> think I'm -1 on establishing a stable ABI for now.
>
> So we should probably bump the SO number on each minor release.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> Le 03/07/2019 à 22:41, Uwe L. Korn a écrit :
> > I've documented that some time ago:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/docs/source/developers/cpp.rst
> >
> > I actually wanted to add this to the build but we were breaking the ABI
> so often that it would have never been green.
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, at 9:52 PM, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> >> Ruby uses ABI Compliance Checker
> >> https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/
> >> with a small script:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/ruby/chkbuild/blob/master/abi-checker.rb
> >>
> >> There is the official Debian package for it:
> >>
> >> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=abi-compliance-checker
> >>
> >> In <20...@python.org>
> >> "Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0" on Wed, 3 Jul 2019
> >> 09:59:15 +0200,
> >> Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Do we have any reliable tool to check for ABI breakage?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le 03/07/2019 à 02:57, Sutou Kouhei a écrit :
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> We'll release 0.14.0 soon. Then we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" at
> >>>> master. If we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT", C++ build is failed:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/CMakeLists.txt#L47
> >>>>
> >>>> message(FATAL_ERROR "Need to implement SO version generation for
> Arrow 1.0+")
> >>>>
> >>>> So we need to consider how to generate SO version for 1.0.0
> >>>> as the first task for 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2522
> >>>> for the current SO versioning.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If we may break ABI compatibility each minor version up
> >>>> release ("Y" is increased in "X.Y.Z"), we should include
> >>>> minor version into SO major version (100, 101 and 102 in the
> >>>> following examples):
> >>>>
> >>>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
> >>>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
> >>>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
> >>>>
> >>>> If we don't break ABI compatibility each minor version up
> >>>> release, we just use the same SO major version (100 in the
> >>>> following examples) in 1.0.0:
> >>>>
> >>>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
> >>>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.100.1.0
> >>>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.100.2.0
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I choose 1XX as SO major version because we already use
> >>>> 10-14 for SO major version. We should not use them in the
> >>>> future to avoid confusion. So I choose 1XX in the above
> >>>> examples.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> --
> >>>> kou
> >>>>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
The question: is do we want to maintain a stable ABI?
Given the number of constraints that we already impose ourselves, I
think I'm -1 on establishing a stable ABI for now.
So we should probably bump the SO number on each minor release.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 03/07/2019 à 22:41, Uwe L. Korn a écrit :
> I've documented that some time ago: https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/docs/source/developers/cpp.rst
>
> I actually wanted to add this to the build but we were breaking the ABI so often that it would have never been green.
>
> Uwe
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, at 9:52 PM, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>> Ruby uses ABI Compliance Checker
>> https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/
>> with a small script:
>>
>> https://github.com/ruby/chkbuild/blob/master/abi-checker.rb
>>
>> There is the official Debian package for it:
>>
>> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=abi-compliance-checker
>>
>> In <20...@python.org>
>> "Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0" on Wed, 3 Jul 2019
>> 09:59:15 +0200,
>> Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Do we have any reliable tool to check for ABI breakage?
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 03/07/2019 à 02:57, Sutou Kouhei a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We'll release 0.14.0 soon. Then we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" at
>>>> master. If we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT", C++ build is failed:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/CMakeLists.txt#L47
>>>>
>>>> message(FATAL_ERROR "Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+")
>>>>
>>>> So we need to consider how to generate SO version for 1.0.0
>>>> as the first task for 1.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2522
>>>> for the current SO versioning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we may break ABI compatibility each minor version up
>>>> release ("Y" is increased in "X.Y.Z"), we should include
>>>> minor version into SO major version (100, 101 and 102 in the
>>>> following examples):
>>>>
>>>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
>>>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
>>>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
>>>>
>>>> If we don't break ABI compatibility each minor version up
>>>> release, we just use the same SO major version (100 in the
>>>> following examples) in 1.0.0:
>>>>
>>>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
>>>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.100.1.0
>>>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.100.2.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I choose 1XX as SO major version because we already use
>>>> 10-14 for SO major version. We should not use them in the
>>>> future to avoid confusion. So I choose 1XX in the above
>>>> examples.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --
>>>> kou
>>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by "Uwe L. Korn" <uw...@xhochy.com>.
I've documented that some time ago: https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/docs/source/developers/cpp.rst
I actually wanted to add this to the build but we were breaking the ABI so often that it would have never been green.
Uwe
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, at 9:52 PM, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> Ruby uses ABI Compliance Checker
> https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/
> with a small script:
>
> https://github.com/ruby/chkbuild/blob/master/abi-checker.rb
>
> There is the official Debian package for it:
>
> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=abi-compliance-checker
>
> In <20...@python.org>
> "Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0" on Wed, 3 Jul 2019
> 09:59:15 +0200,
> Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Do we have any reliable tool to check for ABI breakage?
> >
> >
> > Le 03/07/2019 à 02:57, Sutou Kouhei a écrit :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We'll release 0.14.0 soon. Then we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" at
> >> master. If we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT", C++ build is failed:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/CMakeLists.txt#L47
> >>
> >> message(FATAL_ERROR "Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+")
> >>
> >> So we need to consider how to generate SO version for 1.0.0
> >> as the first task for 1.0.0.
> >>
> >> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2522
> >> for the current SO versioning.
> >>
> >>
> >> If we may break ABI compatibility each minor version up
> >> release ("Y" is increased in "X.Y.Z"), we should include
> >> minor version into SO major version (100, 101 and 102 in the
> >> following examples):
> >>
> >> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
> >> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
> >> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
> >>
> >> If we don't break ABI compatibility each minor version up
> >> release, we just use the same SO major version (100 in the
> >> following examples) in 1.0.0:
> >>
> >> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
> >> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.100.1.0
> >> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.100.2.0
> >>
> >>
> >> I choose 1XX as SO major version because we already use
> >> 10-14 for SO major version. We should not use them in the
> >> future to avoid confusion. So I choose 1XX in the above
> >> examples.
> >>
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --
> >> kou
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Sutou Kouhei <ko...@clear-code.com>.
Ruby uses ABI Compliance Checker
https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/
with a small script:
https://github.com/ruby/chkbuild/blob/master/abi-checker.rb
There is the official Debian package for it:
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=abi-compliance-checker
In <20...@python.org>
"Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0" on Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:59:15 +0200,
Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
> Do we have any reliable tool to check for ABI breakage?
>
>
> Le 03/07/2019 à 02:57, Sutou Kouhei a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> We'll release 0.14.0 soon. Then we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" at
>> master. If we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT", C++ build is failed:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/CMakeLists.txt#L47
>>
>> message(FATAL_ERROR "Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+")
>>
>> So we need to consider how to generate SO version for 1.0.0
>> as the first task for 1.0.0.
>>
>> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2522
>> for the current SO versioning.
>>
>>
>> If we may break ABI compatibility each minor version up
>> release ("Y" is increased in "X.Y.Z"), we should include
>> minor version into SO major version (100, 101 and 102 in the
>> following examples):
>>
>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
>>
>> If we don't break ABI compatibility each minor version up
>> release, we just use the same SO major version (100 in the
>> following examples) in 1.0.0:
>>
>> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
>> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.100.1.0
>> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.100.2.0
>>
>>
>> I choose 1XX as SO major version because we already use
>> 10-14 for SO major version. We should not use them in the
>> future to avoid confusion. So I choose 1XX in the above
>> examples.
>>
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> kou
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] C++ SO versioning with 1.0.0
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
Do we have any reliable tool to check for ABI breakage?
Le 03/07/2019 à 02:57, Sutou Kouhei a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> We'll release 0.14.0 soon. Then we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" at
> master. If we use "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT", C++ build is failed:
>
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/cpp/CMakeLists.txt#L47
>
> message(FATAL_ERROR "Need to implement SO version generation for Arrow 1.0+")
>
> So we need to consider how to generate SO version for 1.0.0
> as the first task for 1.0.0.
>
> See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-2522
> for the current SO versioning.
>
>
> If we may break ABI compatibility each minor version up
> release ("Y" is increased in "X.Y.Z"), we should include
> minor version into SO major version (100, 101 and 102 in the
> following examples):
>
> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.101.0.0
> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.102.0.0
>
> If we don't break ABI compatibility each minor version up
> release, we just use the same SO major version (100 in the
> following examples) in 1.0.0:
>
> * 1.0.0 -> libarrow.100.0.0
> * 1.1.0 -> libarrow.100.1.0
> * 1.2.0 -> libarrow.100.2.0
>
>
> I choose 1XX as SO major version because we already use
> 10-14 for SO major version. We should not use them in the
> future to avoid confusion. So I choose 1XX in the above
> examples.
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> kou
>