[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#1115881: glibc 2.42 breaks the gnat-XXX provide



Hi,

On 2025-11-24 12:29, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> > > When gcc-14 is rebuilt with glibc 2.42, the gnat provides will change. I
> > > figured out this is due to:
> 
> > > --- ./build/gcc/ada/rts/s-oscons.ads
> > > +++ ./build/gcc/ada/rts/s-oscons.ads
> > > -   B50                           : constant := 1;          --  50 bps
> > > +   B50                           : constant := 50;         --  50 bps
> 
> > > Now, that might not be considered an ABI break for glibc, but the checksum
> > > over the .ali files interpret that as such one.  However that seems to be
> > > the first time that a glibc update changes that gnat ABI.
> > > 
> > > Note, that we just can rebuild all the packages build-depending on
> > > gnat/gnat-14, but maybe the current ali checksum approach is too tight to be
> > > useful for an ABI check.
> > 
> > Could someone on the ADA side please tell us, if it is fine to include 
> > the gnat stack in the glibc transition, or if the checksum approach 
> > needs to be changed or any other suggestion?
> 
> Hello.
> 
> In addition to usual precautions regarding ABIs, Ada requires that all
> reverse dependencies are rebuilt whenever a source changes.  The ALI
> checksums enforce this rule and seem right here.

Thanks for the explanations.

> That said, it is not currently possible to rebuild all Ada packages.
> Most of them FTBFS and are removed from unstable.
> 
> I think the only sensible option is to remove all Ada packages from
> testing.  If you confirm that this solves your problem, I will request
> the removal.

We will definitely need to get the packages that can't be rebuilt 
removed. For the other packages, thanks for the offer to remove them 
from testing.

That said if they can get rebuild, I guess they can migrate at the same 
time with glibc 2.42 and gcc-14 rebuilt against glibc 2.42. The 
alternative to remove them from testing, get them rebuilt and migrated 
again is also to consider, but I guess we should just leave the release 
team to decide on the best procedure.

Anyway I'll mention the strategy in the transition bug, and will put 
debian-ada@l.d.o in Cc. I'll first do an upload to experimental with the 
latest upstream change, and if all goes fine I'll open a transition bug 
in the next days.

Regards
Aurelien 

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                     http://aurel32.net


Reply to: