| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, "Pavlo(dot)Golub(at)gmail(dot)com" <Pavlo(dot)Golub(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Development of ABI Compliance Checker for official PostgreSQL Repo |
| Date: | 2025-05-19 14:17:24 |
| Message-ID: | f27ff897-c0e4-440d-9dfa-c72ad589ecea@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On 18.05.25 20:29, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On May 16, 2025, at 02:42, Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I had wrote two blogs for the same discussing about importance of this project and how I plan to work on this at blog.mankiratsingh.com I’d greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions.
>
> Anyone have thoughts on Mankirat’s proposal[1] to start with libabigail’s abidiff utility to produce the the raw data for each report, and then write Perl code to transform it to a publishable report?
Well, normally (if there are no problematic ABI changes) the report will
be empty. So I wouldn't spend too much time on the formatting. If
there is a violation, you can just show the raw abidiff output inside
<pre> or whatever.
Generally, this looks like the right direction.
As an additional tip, check the Python source code, they are doing
something like that with libabigail as well.
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
> [1]: https://blog.mankiratsingh.com/posts/abi-compliance-reporting-part-2/
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Junho Choi | 2025-05-20 12:14:05 | rsync pgsql-ftp access |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2025-05-18 18:29:13 | Re: Development of ABI Compliance Checker for official PostgreSQL Repo |