Hi, > 2024年10月7日 19:12，Petter Reinholdtsen <p...@hungry.com> 写道： > > Why does it not have a symbol control file? Is there any hope to reach > upstream proper shared library practice? >
Mo Zhou packaged it solely as dependency of pytorch at first. I believe symbol control file was not crucial that time, since xnnpack and pytorch are tightly coupled. Also the library have some many platform-dependent symbols, adding labour to maintaining symbol files. And from the source side, xnnpack project is in very active development. It has even not got any tags, all version we packed are git snapshots. Upstream does not use any SOVERSION mechanism either. But yes, I can try to put forward that with upstream. > Perhaps this would become easier with a symbol control file? Sure. I agree. > It is the only broken package in the Debian archive, but there might be > billions of software systems built locally on users machine which are > also broken. Proper SONAME handling would reduce the problem. > > Rebuilding and uploading a new onnxruntime make sense, but is not really > addressing this problem, which is incorrect handling of a shared > library. Forcing unexpecting users to rebuild their software is not a > good approach. I plan to upload new fixed onnxruntime first. Then I would do the SONAME bump without change upstream version, anticipating a smooth transition with no extra problems. Do you think this can work? BTW the ABI changes in onnx 1.16.2 also breaks onnxruntime [1]. It might also need similar handling. [1]: https://ci.debian.net/packages/o/onnxruntime/testing/amd64/52820493/ Thanks, Shengqi CHen
