Re: Would an ABI change of apt for DDTP support still be accepted?
- To: Michael Vogt <email@example.com>
- Cc: Otavio Salvador <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Luk Claes <email@example.com>, Christian Perrier <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Debian Release <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Would an ABI change of apt for DDTP support still be accepted?
- From: Steve Langasek <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 02:55:40 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20061002095540.GB4750@mauritius.dodds.net>
- Mail-followup-to: Michael Vogt <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Otavio Salvador <email@example.com>, Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Christian Perrier <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Debian Release <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20061001225413.GJ21209@top.ping.de>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060923063013.GH5546@djedefre.onera> <20060927121410.GM4517@top.ping.de> <451AB131.email@example.com> <20060928005126.GA4714@mauritius.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060928064233.GB4781@mauritius.dodds.net> <[🔎] 20061001225413.GJ21209@top.ping.de>
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 12:54:13AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > BTW, I count 18 binary packages that would need a rebuild for this. This is
> > a decent-sized library transition in its own right.
> We may have to recompile the rdepends of libapt anyway because of
> (recent g++ upload 4.1.1ds1-14 has a g++ regression)
This version of g++-4.1 hasn't been accepted into etch yet, and there's been
no request from Matthias that we do so. Letting it into etch as a freeze
exception suggests that we might have *other* packages fail to build as a
result of similar ABI regressions in other libraries. That doesn't sound
like a good idea to me unless someone is offering to do a full
regression-test of testing using g++ 4.1.1-15.
> Upstream gcc bugreport:
>From this report, there's nothing to suggest the reverse-deps need to be
rebuilt, only that the lib needs to be rebuilt so that the reverse-deps
don't FTBFS. Is there something I'm missing?
> Matthias is still waiting for a comment from upstream on this. It
> maybe enough to recompile apt with the current g++, but it maybe that
> the only save option is to change the soname and recompile a rdepends.
If there really is reason to believe this requires an soname change, I think
we should instead consider backing this patch out of g++-4.1 in unstable
until after the etch release, as compiler-induced ABI changes are clearly
*not* supposed to be happening during a toolchain freeze.
> > > There's no API changes from APT side so just binary NMUs are enough
> > > AFAIK.
> > So what is this ABI change that doesn't involve API changes?
> There is a API change involved. But it is backwards compatible so a
> recompile will be good enough. To make use of the translated
> descriptions the applications needs to be changed though. Patches are
> available for aptitude, python-apt, synaptic, libapt-front (0.3).
> I hope this helps and I'm sorry for the bad timing with this request :/
FWIW, this didn't answer the question "what is the ABI change?" :)
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.