As there is some discussion of whether the ELF dependency generator
should use the full version string presented by the library file name's
suffix, or should assume a SemVer-style major.minor and truncate the
requirement to the first two dot-separated numbers, questions about
rpminspect come to mind:
I see that rpminspect is run in Fedora CI for updates. For example,
libnghttp2:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-888dfc8170
https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/627326f9-7f83-4d0b-aca0-68c50c5e9b09/
Looking at this result, I think I see one bug and one RFE.
First, the bug. From these results, it looks like rpminspect is only
comparing the primary package to the old build. I do see a result for
the package "nghttp2", but I don't see an rpminspect result for
"libnghttp2". Are sub-packages not tested, or are the results simply
not exposed? (Or am I simply missing the path to find them?)
Second, the RFE: I am assuming that this test raises an error if abidiff
reports a breaking change between two packages (either a bumped soname,
or a removed or changed symbol without an soname bump.) In order to
make the ELF dependency generator reliable if it truncates versions to a
major.minor style version, would it be possible for the tooling to
detect a backward-compatible change (a new symbol) that didn't also
increment the major.minor version?
Should I report those in bugzilla, and if so, against what component?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
