Another unannounced soname bump: libseccomp

Andrey Ponomarenko aponomarenko at rosalab.ru
Tue Jan 29 11:18:48 UTC 2013


Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 19:44 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> DEBUG util.py:264:  Error: Package: 2:qemu-system-mips-1.3.0-5.fc19.x86_64 (build)
>> DEBUG util.py:264:             Requires: libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
>> DEBUG util.py:264:  Error: Package: 2:qemu-system-or32-1.3.0-5.fc19.x86_64 (build)
>> DEBUG util.py:264:             Requires: libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
>> DEBUG util.py:264:  Error: Package: 2:qemu-system-microblaze-1.3.0-5.fc19.x86_64 (build)
>> DEBUG util.py:264:             Requires: libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
>> [etc]
>> full log: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9474/4909474/root.log
>>
>> This seems to have been caused by this build:
>>
>>    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=380981
>>
>> Affected packages:
>>
>> - libcacard-tools
>> - qemu
> So, just as a path for anyone who's interested to take a look down, I
> think we could potentially Do Something about all these unannounced
> soname bumps. We do have a test in autoqa that catches them, and doesn't
> seem to have a huge amount of 'false positives'.

FYI

http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/libseccomp.html

> The test case is
> rpmguard, and here is it noticing this soname bump:
>
> http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/testrun?id_=956918
> http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/511987-autotest/virt02.qa/rpmguard/results/libseccomp-2.0.0-0.f.html
>
> N: Comparing libseccomp-1.0.1-0.fc19 and libseccomp-2.0.0-0.fc19 (archs:
> i686) ...
> W: provision-added libseccomp.so.2
> W: provision-removed libseccomp.so.1
>
> N: Comparing libseccomp-1.0.1-0.fc19 and libseccomp-2.0.0-0.fc19 (archs: x86_64) ...
> W: provision-added libseccomp.so.2()(64bit)
> W: provision-removed libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
>
> now rpmguard does various other things, so we'd need to filter out the
> provision-removed (especially) results for this case. But we do at least
> have this information being captured by autoqa, I think.
>
> That's all I got!

-- 
Andrey Ponomarenko, ROSA Lab.



More information about the devel mailing list