On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 PM Michel Alexandre Salim <salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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,
Sounds good.
Thank you for announcing it and following the steps.
_______________________________________________ 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
