| ------------------- |
| Written by Ted T'so |
| ------------------- |
| |
| > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html |
| > |
| > I understood that, if there is no interface change but some implementation |
| > changes, I need to bump revision. If new interface is added, for example, I |
| > need to bump current while revision=0 and age++. |
| |
| So part of the problem here is that libtool is doing something really |
| strange because they are trying to use some abstract concept that is |
| OS-independent. I don't use libtool because I find it horribly |
| complex and doesn't add enough value to be worth the complexity. |
| |
| So I'll tell you how things work with respect to Linux's ELF version |
| numbering system. Translating this to libtool's wierd "current, |
| revision, age" terminology is left as an exercise to the reader. I've |
| looked at the libtool documentation, and it confuses me horribly. |
| Reading it, I suspect it's wrong, but I don't have the time to |
| experiment to confirm that the documentation is wrong and how it |
| diverges from the libtool implementation. |
| |
| So let me explain things using the ELF shared library terminology, |
| which is "major version, minor version, patchlevel". This shows up in |
| the library name: |
| |
| libudev.so.1.6.11 |
| |
| So in this example, the major version number is 1, the minor version |
| is 6, and the patchlevel is 11. The patchlevel is entirely optional, |
| and many packages don't use it at all. The minor number is also |
| mostly useless on Linux, but it's still there for historical reasons. |
| The patchlevel and minor version numbers were useful back for SunOS |
| (and Linux a.out shared library), back when there weren't rpm and dpkg |
| as package managers. |
| |
| So many modern Linux shared libraries will only use the major and |
| minor version numbers, e.g: |
| |
| libext2fs.so.2.4 |
| |
| The only thing you really need to worry about is the major version |
| number, really. The minor version is *supposed* to change when new |
| interfaces has changed (but I and most other people don't do that any |
| more). But the big deal is that the major number *must* get bumped if |
| an existing interface has *changed*. |
| |
| So let's talk about the major version number, and then we'll talk |
| about why the minor version number isn't really a big deal for Linux. |
| |
| So if you change any of the library's function signatures --- and this |
| includes changing a type from a 32-bit integer to a 64-bit integer, |
| that's an ABI breakage, and so you must bump the major version number |
| so that a program that was linked against libfoo.so.4 doesn't try to |
| use libfoo.so.5. That's really the key --- will a program linked |
| against the previous version library break if it links against the |
| newer version. If it does, then you need to bump the version number. |
| |
| So for structures, if you change any of the existing fields, or if the |
| application program allocates the structure --- either by declaring it |
| on the stack, or via malloc() --- and you expand the structure, |
| obviously that will cause problem, and so that's an ABI break. |
| |
| If however, you arrange to have structures allocated by the library, |
| and struct members are always added at the end, then an older program |
| won't have any problems. You can guarantee this by simply only using |
| a pointer to the struct in your public header files, and defining the |
| struct in a private header file that is not available to userspace |
| programs. |
| |
| Similarly, adding new functions never breaks the ABI. That's because |
| older program won't try to use the newer interfaces. So if I need to |
| change an interface to a function, what I'll generally do is to define |
| a new function, and then implement the older function in terms of the |
| newer one. For example: |
| |
| extern errcode_t ext2fs_open(const char *name, int flags, int superblock, |
| unsigned int block_size, io_manager manager, |
| ext2_filsys *ret_fs); |
| |
| extern errcode_t ext2fs_open2(const char *name, const char *io_options, |
| int flags, int superblock, |
| unsigned int block_size, io_manager manager, |
| ext2_filsys *hret_fs); |
| |
| As far as the minor version numbers are concerned, the dynamic linker |
| doesn't use it. In SunOS 4, if you have a DT_NEEDED for libfoo.so.4, |
| and the dynamic linker finds in its search path: |
| |
| libfoo.so.4.8 |
| libfoo.so.4.9 |
| |
| It will preferentially use libfoo.so.4.9. |
| |
| That's not how it works in Linux, though. In Linux there will be a |
| symlink that points libfoo.so.4 to libfoo.so.4.9, and the linker just |
| looks for libfoo.so.4. One could imagine a package manager which |
| adjusts the symlink to point at the library with the highest version, |
| but given that libfoo.so.4.9 is supposed to contain a superset of |
| libfoo.so.4.8, there's no point. So we just in practice handle all of |
| this in the package manager, or via an ELF symbol map. Or, we just |
| assume that since vast majority of software comes from the |
| distribution, the distro package manager will just update libraries to |
| the newer version as a matter of course, and nothing special needs to |
| be done. |
| |
| So in practice I don't bump the minor version number for e2fsprogs |
| each time I add new interfaces, because in practice it really doesn't |
| matter for Linux. We have a much better system that gets used for |
| Debian. |
| |
| For example in Debian there is a file that contains when each symbol |
| was first introduced into a library, by its package version number. |
| See: |
| |
| https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/ext2/e2fsprogs.git/tree/debian/libext2fs2.symbols |
| |
| This file contains a version number for each symbol in libext2fs2, and |
| it tells us what version of libext2fs you need to guarantee that a |
| particular symbol is present in the library. Then when *other* |
| packages are built that depend on libext2fs2, the minimum version of |
| libext2fs can be calculated based on which symbols they use. |
| |
| So for example the libf2fs-format4 package has a Debian dependency of: |
| |
| Depends: libblkid1 (>= 2.17.2), libc6 (>= 2.14), libf2fs5, libuuid1 (>= 2.16) |
| |
| The minimum version numbers needed for libblkid1 and libuuid1 are |
| determined by figuring out all of the symbols used by the |
| libf2fs-format4 package, and determining the minimum version number of |
| libblkid1 that supports all of those blkid functions. |
| |
| This gets done automatically, so I didn't have to figure this out. |
| All I have in the debian/control file is: |
| |
| Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends} |
| |
| Sorry this got so long, but hopefully you'll find this useful. How |
| you bend libtool to your will is something you'll have to figure out, |
| because I don't use libtool in my packages.[1] |
| |
| Cheers, |
| |
| - Ted |
| |
| |
| [1] If you are interested in how I do things in e2fsprogs, take a look |
| at the Makefile.elf-lib, Makefile.solaris-lib, Makefile.darwin-lib, |
| etc. here: |
| |
| https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/ext2/e2fsprogs.git/tree/lib |
| |
| This these Makefile fragments are then pulled into the generated |
| makefile using autoconf's substitution rules, here: |
| |
| https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/ext2/e2fsprogs.git/tree/lib/ext2fs/Makefile.in |
| |
| (Search for "@MAKEFILE_ELF@" in the above Makefile.in). |
| |
| So when someone runs "configure --enable-elf-shlibs", they get the ELF |
| shared libraries built. On BSD and MacOS systems they just have to |
| run "configure --enable-bsd-shlibs", and so on. |
| |
| Personally, since most people don't bother to write truly portable |
| programs, as their C code is full of Linux'isms, using libtool is just |
| overkill, because they probably can't build on any other OS *anyway* |
| so libtool's slow and complex abstraction layer is totally wasted. |
| Might as well not use autoconf, automake, and libtool at all. |
| |
| On the other hand, if you really *do* worry about portability on other |
| OS's (e2fsprogs builds on MacOS, NetBSD, Hurd, Solaris, etc.) then |
| using autoconf makes sense --- but I *still* don't think the |
| complexity of libtool is worth it. |
| |
| = Add-on = |
| If you are going to be making one less major update, this is the |
| perfect time to make sure that data structures are allocated by the |
| library, and are (ideally) opaque to the calling application (so they |
| only manipulate structure poitners). That is, the structure |
| definition is not exposed in the public header file, and you use |
| accessor functions to set and get fields in the structure. |
| |
| If you can't do that for all data structures, if you can do that with |
| your primary data structure that's going to make your life much easier |
| in the long term. For ext2fs, that's the file systme handle. It's |
| created by ext2fs_open(), and it's passed to all other library |
| functions as the first argument. |
| |
| The other thing you might want to consider doing is adding a magic |
| number to the beginning of each structure. That way you can tell if |
| the wrong structure gets passed to a library. It's also helpful for |
| doing the equivalent of subclassing in C. |
| |
| This is how we do it in libext2fs --- we use com_err to define the |
| magic numbers: |
| |
| error_table ext2 |
| |
| ec EXT2_ET_BASE, |
| "EXT2FS Library version @E2FSPROGS_VERSION@" |
| |
| ec EXT2_ET_MAGIC_EXT2FS_FILSYS, |
| "Wrong magic number for ext2_filsys structure" |
| |
| ec EXT2_ET_MAGIC_BADBLOCKS_LIST, |
| "Wrong magic number for badblocks_list structure" |
| ... |
| |
| And then every single structure starts like so: |
| |
| struct struct_ext2_filsys { |
| errcode_t magic; |
| ... |
| |
| struct ext2_struct_inode_scan { |
| errcode_t magic; |
| ... |
| |
| And then before we use any pointer we do this: |
| |
| if (file->magic != EXT2_ET_MAGIC_EXT2_FILE) |
| return EXT2_ET_MAGIC_EXT2_FILE; |