On Wed, 2023-02-08 at 14:09 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > 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/8b3b02e83af83 > > > 26562a155581d77f04f2ae84197/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. > Correct to both. Only drgn is affected, and Davide and I maintain it so we'll get it rebuilt as a set. 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
