Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2018-01-12)
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> a écrit:
Justin Forbes wrote:
> * #1810 Let's flip the switch on January 15th: gating in Fedora
> (jforbes, 16:15:51)
> * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1810 (jforbes, 16:16:05)
> * LINK: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/waiverdb (pingou,
> 16:24:22)
> * AGREED: Issue #1810: Let's flip the switch on January 15th: gating
> in Fedora is approved (+8,0,-0) (jforbes, 16:25:08)
Uh, `dist.abicheck` produces a lot of false positives on:
* libraries that are internal and that nothing should depend on (e.g., in
QupZilla, package `qupzilla`),
* APIs explicitly documented as "private, can change at any version", as
common in all Qt modules (e.g., in QtWebEngine, package `qt5-qtwebengine`).
For these two cases you can add a suppression specification file to your
package, telling dist.abicheck to not consider those libraries. The
file needs to end with the .abignore extension. This is similar to the
suppression mechanism of the Valgrind tool.
The syntax of a suppression specification file is documented at
https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/libabigail-concepts.html#suppres....
You can test all this by using the fedabipkgdiff[1] tool on your package
(before pushing it to koji) to compare its ABI against the one of the
already-released versions.
[1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/manual/fedabipkgdiff.html
My packages often fail `dist.abicheck`.
If you feel like they shouldn't fail despite the suppression
specification mechanism, then please file a bug and we'll see what we
can do. This ought to work.
Cheers,
--
Dodji