On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 12:37 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > He's a co-maintainer of python-drgn, so I assume he's going to rebuild it himself. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
