Bug#726165: Acknowledgement (transition: protobuf)

[Robert Edmonds <edmonds@debian.org>]

Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:00:35 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > 
> > > Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:19:49 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 16:57:30 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I will upload protobuf 2.5.0-5 to unstable shortly.  Is there anything I
> > > > > > need to do to schedule binNMUs of the reverse deps or is that handled by
> > > > > > the release team?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Scheduled now.
> > > > > 
> > > > And they started failing.  At least ia64 and sparc look like protobuf
> > > > itself being broken.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Julien
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I'd like to request binNMUs against protobuf 2.5.0-7.
> > > 
> > Failed ia64 and sparc builds given back.
> 
> OK, it looks like my changes in protobuf 2.5.0-6 / -7 did in fact break
> the ABI from 2.5.0-5, based on the reports in #737246 and #737145.
> 
> Would it be possible to binNMU protobuf's reverse deps on the other
> architectures or would we need to do a SONAME bump?
> 
> I am really sorry about this mess.

Actually, I'm still investigating this, please ignore my request for
more binNMUs above.

Chris Knadle's input in #737246 makes me believe that the changes in
2.5.0-6 / -7 just aren't correct.  I'm thinking we should probably go
back to the approach in 2.5.0-5 (though with a fallback atomic
implementation for architectures where the default gcc is < 4.7).

-- 
Robert Edmonds
edmonds@debian.org