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

Bug#769744: marked as done (nmu: ibutils_1.5.7-3)

Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2014 17:14:45 +0100
with message-id <20141116161445.GK2077@betterave.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#769744: nmu: ibutils_1.5.7-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #769744,
regarding nmu: ibutils_1.5.7-3
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
769744: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=769744
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

libopensm5 ships three libraries with independent soversions.
One of them had an unnoticed soversion bump at some point, rendering
packages build against the old version installable but unusable.
#769742

libopensm5
Reverse Depends:
  opensm            same source as libopensm5
  libopensm-dev     same source as libopensm5
  libibnetdisc5     OK
  infiniband-diags  OK
  libibdm1          OK
  ibutils           BROKEN

# ldd /usr/bin/ibis  # a binary from ibutils
        linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fffdadfc000)
        libopensm.so.5 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libopensm.so.5 (0x00007fa47d615000)
        libosmvendor.so.3 => not found
        libosmcomp.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libosmcomp.so.3 (0x00007fa47d406000)
....

libopensm5 ships libosmvendor.so.4 nowadays

Since it is too late for doing a proper transition for jessie,
I would suggest to do a binNMU of ibutils (in jessie? or sid?)
and tag #769742 jessie-ignore

nmu ibutils_1.5.7-3 . ALL . jessie-proposed-updates . -m "Rebuild against opensm 3.3.18"

Is that the correct syntax? Do jessie binNMUs work that way?
Since the version in jessie and sid is currently the same,
would a jessie-binNMU be copied to sid afterwards?
(This binNMU can probably be done safely in sid, too, if it
 is possible to migrate the binNMU. But what about cases where
 a binNMU in sid would pickup dependencies that cannot go to
 jessie?)


Andreas

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 03:29:41 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:

> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
> 
> libopensm5 ships three libraries with independent soversions.
> One of them had an unnoticed soversion bump at some point, rendering
> packages build against the old version installable but unusable.
> #769742
> 
> libopensm5
> Reverse Depends:
>   opensm            same source as libopensm5
>   libopensm-dev     same source as libopensm5
>   libibnetdisc5     OK
>   infiniband-diags  OK
>   libibdm1          OK
>   ibutils           BROKEN
> 
> # ldd /usr/bin/ibis  # a binary from ibutils
>         linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fffdadfc000)
>         libopensm.so.5 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libopensm.so.5 (0x00007fa47d615000)
>         libosmvendor.so.3 => not found
>         libosmcomp.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libosmcomp.so.3 (0x00007fa47d406000)
> ....
> 
> libopensm5 ships libosmvendor.so.4 nowadays
> 
> Since it is too late for doing a proper transition for jessie,
> I would suggest to do a binNMU of ibutils (in jessie? or sid?)
> and tag #769742 jessie-ignore
> 
NAK, this needs to be fixed properly IMO.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: