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

[Neal Gompa]

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/8b3b02e83af8326562a1555...)
> > 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.

--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!