On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:21 AM Michel Alexandre Salim <salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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,
If I am reading this correctly, the only package affected would be drgn (from python-drgn).
It should hopefully just need a rebuild.
Is that correct?
Were you planning on rebuilding python-drgn, or contacting the package maintainer and having them do it?
Troy
_______________________________________________ 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
