Hi all, Per the incompatible upgrade policy[1] I'm proposing upgrading libkdumpfile from 0.4.1 to the latest 0.5.1 in both EPEL 8 and 9. Bugzilla issues: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2162866 (for 0.5.1 in general) - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168301 (for EPEL) Up to 0.4.1, libkdumpfile was packaged without the test suite being run, and when I started work on packaging it in Debian I noticed a lot of test failures on non-x86_64 architectures: https://github.com/ptesarik/libkdumpfile/issues/40 This is now fixed (0.5.0 is the first version to pass tests cleanly without additional patches on Fedora), but prior to its release we were basically building in Fedora from a post-0.4.1 snapshot (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libkdumpfile/blob/8b3b02e83af8326562a155581d77f04f2ae84197/f/libkdumpfile.spec) that is likely not ABI compatible with the original 0.4.1 anyway, so there's no reasonable way to backport the architecture fixes to 0.4.1. Change in sonames: [michel@f37-packaging ~]$ comm <(rpmdistro-repoquery fedora rawhide -- provides libkdumpfile 2>/dev/null) <(rpmdistro-repoquery centos-stream 9 --provides libkdumpfile 2>/dev/null) libaddrxlat.so.2()(64bit) libaddrxlat.so.2(LIBADDRXLAT_0)(64bit) libaddrxlat.so.3 libaddrxlat.so.3()(64bit) libaddrxlat.so.3(LIBADDRXLAT_0) libaddrxlat.so.3(LIBADDRXLAT_0)(64bit) libkdumpfile = 0.4.1-5.el9 libkdumpfile = 0.5.0-3.fc38 libkdumpfile(x86-32) = 0.5.0-3.fc38 libkdumpfile(x86-64) = 0.4.1-5.el9 libkdumpfile(x86-64) = 0.5.0-3.fc38 libkdumpfile.so.10 libkdumpfile.so.10()(64bit) libkdumpfile.so.10(LIBKDUMPFILE_0) libkdumpfile.so.10(LIBKDUMPFILE_0)(64bit) libkdumpfile.so.9()(64bit) libkdumpfile.so.9(LIBKDUMPFILE_0)(64bit) Only drgn currently depends on libkdumpfile, and I plan to rebuild it in the same updates: [michel@f37-packaging ~]$ rpmdistro-repoquery centos-stream 9 -- whatrequires "libaddrxlat.so.2()(64bit)" Last metadata expiration check: 0:12:30 ago on Wed Feb 8 11:02:35 2023. libkdumpfile-devel-0:0.4.1-5.el9.x86_64 libkdumpfile-util-0:0.4.1-5.el9.x86_64 python3-libkdumpfile-0:0.4.1-5.el9.x86_64 [michel@f37-packaging ~]$ rpmdistro-repoquery centos-stream 9 -- whatrequires "libkdumpfile.so.9()(64bit)" Last metadata expiration check: 0:12:40 ago on Wed Feb 8 11:02:35 2023. drgn-0:0.0.22-1.el9.x86_64 libkdumpfile-devel-0:0.4.1-5.el9.x86_64 libkdumpfile-util-0:0.4.1-5.el9.x86_64 python3-libkdumpfile-0:0.4.1-5.el9.x86_64 [michel@f37-packaging ~]$ rpmdistro-repoquery centos-stream-legacy 8 -- whatrequires "libaddrxlat.so.2()(64bit)" Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:08 ago on Wed Feb 8 11:15:35 2023. libkdumpfile-devel-0:0.4.1-5.el8.x86_64 libkdumpfile-util-0:0.4.1-5.el8.x86_64 python3-libkdumpfile-0:0.4.1-5.el8.x86_64 [michel@f37-packaging ~]$ rpmdistro-repoquery centos-stream-legacy 8 -- whatrequires "libkdumpfile.so.9()(64bit)" Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:16 ago on Wed Feb 8 11:15:35 2023. drgn-0:0.0.22-1.el8.x86_64 libkdumpfile-devel-0:0.4.1-5.el8.x86_64 libkdumpfile-util-0:0.4.1-5.el8.x86_64 python3-libkdumpfile-0:0.4.1-5.el8.x86_64 [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
