Re: [RFC] Embed the mesa version in the library/binary name

[Rob Clark <rclark@redhat.com>]

On Aug 14 2015 or thereabouts, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2015 6:21 PM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> Hi,
> >
> > My name is Emil and I'm the person breaking^w fixing mesa's build
> > amongst others.
> Yes, we know :D
> >
> > A while back I had this idea of renaming the libraries provided by
> > mesa to include the actual version number. Prior to doing anything
> > "crazy" I've decided to seek your feedback.
> >
> >
> > * What
> > The idea is to rename (ideally) all of the versioned libraries.
> > Unversioned ones such as radeonsi_dri.so will remain as is.
> >
> > Note: the soname and symlinks will stay to avoid breaking compatibility.
> >
> >
> > * How
> > While I haven't fully decided on the exact approach I'm thinking of
> > something like:
> > libGL.so.1.0.0 -> libGL.so.11.0 or libGL.so.110.1 or libGL.so.11.01
> I'd like to see 11.0 for 11.0, 11.1 for 11.1 and etc.

Adam probably knows better, but I thought libGL.so/.1/.1.2.0 as part of
the linux/unix GL ABI?  So not really sure that it is something we can
actually change.

That said, with the libOpenGL stuff we could probably do something
better.

BR,
-R

> >
> > Other suggestions and ideas are welcome but please keep the version to X.Y
> >
> >
> > * Why
> > A number of reasons:
> > - The binary driver by Nvidia has been using this approach for years.
> > - It provides quick and easy feedback in traces
> > - In most cases, one can easily establish if the distro provided
> > library is overwritten.
> > - Allows multiple binaries to coexist, making the dynamic switching
> > between libGL.so.110.1, libGL.so.11.2.0 (mesa), libGL.so.352.14
> > (nvidia) libGL.so.XX.Y (another vendor) a little bit easier.
> > - OpenBSD, Solaris(?) use sunos 4 style versioning -> .so.major.minor
> >
> >
> > How does this sound, do you foresee any pros/cons with the above
> > proposal ? Any and all input is greatly appreciated, but please try to
> > keep your replies technical and constructive.
> I'm fully agree with proposal, but one question. How much libs/programs
> links against libGL or other libs? I mean how much programs we will rebuild
> every release?
> >
> > If there are any concerns wrt the required updates (of the
> > build/packaging recipes) I'm willing to help out.
> >
> >
> > As I'm not sure how many of you follow mesa-dev, would you be OK if I
> > CC you in distro related~ish topics.
> > Some (not so crazy) examples:
> > - libEGL.so has additional dependency (via libdl) of X
> > - OpenCL only works with render node devices, kernel vY or later is
> required
> > - Mesa's new library libfoo.so should be shipped with libbar.so
> I would be happy to be CCed.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Emil