[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposing incompatible upgrade for libkdumpfile (0.4.1 -> 0.5.1)

[Troy Dawson]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 1:19 PM Michel Alexandre Salim <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-02-08 at 14:09 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 12:37 PM Troy Dawson 
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:21 AM Michel Alexandre Salim
> > >  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.