Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Hardware Locality Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc in Debian, anybody working on RPMs?
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-20 15:54:35


On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:

> > Using the 0.9.2 tarball the version on the .so is "0.0.0". This
> doesn't seem
> > "right". I'm happy to code up the libtool fu to make the so
> version match the
> > package version but is that what we want? I don't really expect
> that the ABI
> > to change that regularly.
>
> I don't know about this, so I'll let others answer.
>

No, we *definitely* do not want the .so version to match the hwloc
version. See the guidance on .so version numbers in the GNU Libtool
docs.

Note that hwloc's .so version number is controlled by the top-level
VERSION file. There's a few comments in that file explaining the
deal. It's meant to be changed manually as part of the release
process. It will always be 0.0.0 on the SVN trunk; it will only be
non-zero on the release branches.

My $0.02: .so.0.0.0 is ok for v0.9.2. All future releases need to
consider whether to change the value according to the rules described
in the Libtool docs. For example:

      https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/wiki/ReleaseProcedures

> I see that Open MPI has .src.rpm files on its download pages. Should
> we
> consider doing the same for hwloc?
>

I do most of that work -- some people have found the SRPM handy. Note
that it is nowhere close to the specfiles used by RH/Centos/Fedora or
Suse -- it is much more feature-full than what they use. I do believe
that Fedora has good docs on their guidelines for their specfiles; I
am not up-to-date on them, though.

Hypothetically, the specfile should be pretty simple since we conform
to most of the GNU standards.

> > FWIW I'm the Feora maintainer for the "other" libtopology[1] ;P
>

Exxxcellent. :-)

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]