On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:04:51PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On 2019, ഒക്ടോബർ 28 4:12:44 PM IST, Utkarsh Gupta <guptautkarsh2102@gmail.com> wrote: > >Hey, > > > >On 28/10/19 1:20 pm, Nilesh wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I had been trying to backport ruby-nokogiri, as it is one of the many > >> dependencies of gitlab-12.2.8, and hence needs backporting in order > >to > >> backport gitlab. > >> However, it fails with the error: > >> > >> <snip> > >> dwz: > >> > >debian/ruby-nokogiri/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ruby/vendor_ruby/2.5.0/nokogiri/nokogiri.so: > >> Found compressed .debug_aranges section, not attempting dwz > >compression > >> dh_dwz: dwz -q -- > >> > >debian/ruby-nokogiri/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ruby/vendor_ruby/2.5.0/nokogiri/nokogiri.so > >> returned exit code 1 > >> make: *** [debian/rules:9: binary] Error 1 > >> dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary subprocess > >> returned exit status 2 > >> > >> (pushed my changes to: > >https://salsa.debian.org/gi-boi-guest/ruby-nokogiri/) > >> > >> It is due to debhelper version 12, and changing it to 11 its solves > >the > >> issue. So, should the compat level be changed to 11, and be > >uploaded(but > >> that will be too much work for backporting all arch dependent > >packages) > >> or should ruby be backported in order to resolve the issue? It would > >be > >> great if it could be clarified. > > > >From what I know and what we discussed on IRC, I think there are two > >ways to go about this. > >First, either downgrade the version of dh-compat to 11 while > >backporting > >each package, or > >Second, backport ruby2.5 2.5.5-4 (because it contains the fix).|||||| > > > >However, given that there are many packages that'd be having the same > >problems while backporting, > >I'd be a +1 for backporting 2.5.5-4 (or 2.5.7-1) to buster-backports. > > > >What would other's opinion on this be? > > I think its fine to backport as there is no soname change and we don't need to rebuild any native extensions (so no impact on existing packages). I'm wondering if 2.5.5-4 is suitable for a stable update as it'd mean we don't need to bump minimum ruby version for packages we need back porting. 2.5.5-4 *could* be made into a stable updade (and not a backport). However, I'm not sure what the consequences of that would be. I would like someone to run such interpreter on a stable system for a while and report the results. Meanwhile, just downgrading debhelper compat to 11 seems easy enough when backporting. And note that's only necessary at all for C extensions, so th eimpact on actual backporting efforts should not be that large.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature