Re: Maintaining ABI Compatibility for LTS branch
On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 14:13 -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 2/9/2022 1:41 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:I agree, this either needs input from the community in order to drive it or aThat's true, this will require engagement from the community. Tool couldYou're after our LTS to maintain ABI. In order to do that we need help, not justThere are lots of levels it could be implemented at but it is something someoneWhat would be the minimum acceptable solution with the least investment?
sponsor. It will be interesting to see if people are interested in doing this
and I guess we can gauge that from the replies to this thread to see if people
do want to do it. I can tell you first hand how badly the existing maintainers
are burning out with the current load so we need new people.
We both agree on incremental improvements and I am fine with that. I don't wantThe idea of "least investment" sends shivers down my spine since it sounds likeIt depends on your taste. I believe in smaller improvements
any patch acceptance taken as a sign we're goging to add a significant process
burden though. I'd prefer we have a broad agreement of what the end objective is
architecture wise too.
Everyone has different needs. We need to find the common ones."None of them got merged" isn't particularly fair here. There was a brief thread
on the yocto list, no patches were proposed or reviewed and the implementation
is a standalone layer so doesn't need to merge anyway, people could use it
already if they wanted.
If the question is whether something would be accepted into core, the answer is
possibly, it would depends. The quality of the code in that layer needs
improving for core and I'm not sure about the approach. Hooking it against
buildhistory is "easy" but as I mentioned in separate discussions earlier today,
buildhistory is getting pulled in different directions (such as a SBOM) and I'm
worried about some of the extensions to it. Certainly, the ABI saving shouldn't
really be buried in a do_install postfunc and perhaps is more of a build history
item that some others that are being proposed.
This probably does need a discussion on the architecture list and we need some
discussion and decisions about where/what buildhistory could/should do. Adding
this to buildhistory is all well and good but we don't have a meaningful
integration/monitoring of existing buildhistory issues in our
autobuilder/workflow today even before adding new things.
Ok.I have to admit I can't remember what the conclusion was on your team's versionSure, let's find out what everyone is doing.