[lldb-dev] [Release-testers] LLVM 7.1.0 release - Please test the branch

[Michał Górny via lldb-dev]

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:13 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 02/05/2019 11:32 AM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote:
> > On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > > > On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via Release-testers
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The release_70 branch is ready for the 7.1.0 release.  I have updated the
> > > > > > version and pushed a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39427,
> > > > > > which is the only bug we will be fixing in this release.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Since this is an ABI breaking changing and also we are introducing a
> > > > > > minor version for the first time, please take some time to test the
> > > > > > branch and make sure everything works as expected.  I'm going
> > > > > > to try to do the 7.1.0-rc1 release some time after 8.0.0-rc2, once the
> > > > > > activity around the release calms down a little.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The SOVERSION is still '7'.  Maybe we should force it to '7.1' here?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > It should already be changed.  This is what I get when I build:
> > > > 
> > > > [tstellar at llvm llvm-build]$ objdump -p lib/libLLVM-7.1.so | grep SONAME
> > > >   SONAME               libLLVM-7.1.so
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm talking about SOVERSION of shared libs from BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON. 
> > > The one defined in llvm_add_library() function:
> > > 
> > >       set_target_properties(${name}
> > >         PROPERTIES
> > >         # Since 4.0.0, the ABI version is indicated by the major version
> > >         SOVERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX}
> > >         VERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
> > > 
> > 
> > Ok, I see.  You are correct, we should change the soname on those.  I can
> > fix this.
> > 
> 
> This should be fixed now by r353247, can you re-test?
> 

Yes, though I don't think returning to '71' is a good idea.  It
introduces a value that is technically larger than '8', and people
running ldconfig(1) will get libs relinked to .so.71 all the time. 
Putting a dot there should be safer.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20190206/1ff88034/attachment.sig>