Bug#726165: mumble +b1 with protobuf 2.5.0-8 works

[Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@coredump.us>]

On Monday, February 03, 2014 22:25:23 Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Chris Knadle wrote:
> > On Friday, January 31, 2014 15:18:18 Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > [...]
> > 
> > > 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).
> > 
> > Unfortunately the feedback I gave you about protobuf 2.5.0-6 / -7 turns
> > out
> > to have been wrong; my local cowbuilder had something weird going on. 
> > That
> > mumble works when built against protobuf 2.5.0-7 got reported to me in
> > #737223 by Gonéri Le Bouder, with after some efforts was able to
> > replicate with cowbuilder.
> 
> Hi, Chris:
> 
> After further investigation, reading upstream bug #351, and commits
> r409, r410, r413, r414, and r415 [1], I'm not convinced that the changes
> I made in protobuf 2.5.0-6 / -7 are complete, and in any case I'm now no
> longer convinced that it's feasible to forward port the "once"
> implementation from protobuf <= 2.4.1 to later versions.

Okay.  Yeah I looked at #351 I see what you mean.

> I've uploaded protobuf 2.5.0-8 to experimental, which has the exact same
> ABI/API as protobuf 2.5.0-5.  Can you tell me if the current version of
> mumble in the archive works with libprotobuf8 2.5.0-8, once it's
> available at your mirror?  (I suspect that it will, but just want to
> make sure.)

Yes, the existing 1.2.4-0.1+b1 in Unstable works with libprotobuf8 2.5.0-8.

> I am pretty sure 2.5.0-8 will not work on ia64 or sparc, where the
> default compiler is gcc-4.6, but it also seems that this problem is not
> so serious now.

Right.

> > Should I file a release.debian.org bug to binNMU mumble?
> 
> I think this is a problem in the protobuf transition, so #726165 is the
> right bug for this discussion :-)

;-)  Makes sense.

> That is, with protobuf 2.5.0-8 there should be no additional binNMUs
> required.  If that's the case, I'll upload -8 to unstable as -9,
> provided it is acceptable to break the architectures with the old
> gcc-4.6 compiler.

I think thats fine concerning mumble.

  -- Chris

--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us