On Wed, 2023-02-08 at 14:09 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 12:37 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:21 AM Michel Alexandre Salim salimma@fedoraproject.org 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:
in general)
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
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,