Bug#998192: release.debian.org: Transition for gsl-2.7 / libgsl26
On 2021-11-21 16:27:03, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Can you please chime in (as you did in the earlier exchanges when Sebastian
> explained to us how to set valus triplet for libtool via configure.ac) ?
>
> On 21 November 2021 at 23:00, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> | On 2021-11-09 12:54:44 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | >
> | > On 8 November 2021 at 22:14, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> | > | Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> | > | Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gsl.html
> | > |
> | > | On 2021-10-31 14:29:40 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | > Package: release.debian.org
> | > | > Severity: normal
> | > | > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> | > | > Usertags: transition
> | > | >
> | > | > GNU GSL 2.7 was release a few months ago, and we now realised (in the
> | > | > discussion of #993324 which also included upstream) that the upstream libtool
> | > | > instruction were in error by _not_ leading to a new sonumber. This was
> | > | > corrected in (source package) gsl upload 2.7-3 to experimental, which built
> | > | > well.
> | > |
> | > | What's the status of the fix upstream? Was there any progress? Otherwise
> | > | we're gonna repeat that with the next upstream release.
> | >
> | > Those are two distinct issues. Upstream, I think we all agreed in the thread
> | > also recorded in the BTS, made an omission in this release where a new soname
> | > was needed, but wasn't given. This happens. So now we need a new soname
> | > __because the ABI/API changed__.
> |
> | Yes, the ABI changed and we need a new SONAME. This would ideally be
> | done upstream, though. Even better would be a new release with that change.
>
> Yes or no. We could proceed with the patch based on your suggestion. That
> would be "lighterweight" as we would not require upstream work right now.
>
> | As far as I am aware, the bug report lacks any mail from Patrick which
>
> He did participate earlier. Some of it may have been private mail between him
> and myself; I'd have to check.
I reply from Patrick isn't recored in the BTS and I also can't find one
in my inbox.
Cheers
>
> | would currently mean that we'd have a Debian-specific SONAME. If we go
> | ahead with that, we will end up in on of the following cases:
> |
> | 1. Upstream bumps the SONAME as we discussed it in the bug report.
> | Given the changes in [1], the next release of gsl would then have a
> | SONAME of libgsl.so.26, but with an incompatible ABI compared to what we
> | would have in the archive.
>
> I didn't catch that aspect. Yes us moving to libgsl.so.26 by ourself now
> would make it impossible to use that soname later :-/
>
> | 2. Upstream bumps the SONAME to a version higher than 26.
>
> (That would be my stylistic preference. If the next GSL is 2.8, why not take
> 28? I may be unaware of other style 'customs' here.)
>
> | (3. Upstream simply ignores the issue)
> |
> | If 1. happens, we'd be unable to sync up with upstream's SONAME (there's
> | a good reason why we tend to avoid Debian-specific SONAMEs).
> |
> | Patrick, what are your planes?
>
> We're all ears :)
>
> Dirk
>
> | Best
> | Sebastian
> |
> | [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gsl.git/commit/?id=191bf01a38e590dd0df8aa571accbbd331bfee07
> |
> | >
> | > That has happened before, and that is why we had transitions in the past.
> |
> |
> |
> | >
> | > But not all previous releases had soname changes. I have maintained GSL here
> | > for about 20 years and I think this is about the third transition. I would
> | > call that defensible.
> | >
> | > The release team does of course have a broader view, and I am always keen to
> | > hear your thoughts.
> | >
> | > Cheers, Dirk
> | >
> | > | Cheers
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > I would like to ask for a formal transition. As we saw with failing tests in
> | > | > dependent packages, binNMUs will not work for all package (but possibly
> | > | > "most").
> | > | >
> | > | > Tentative ben file below.
> | > | >
> | > | > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | > | > title = "gsl 2.7 transition";
> | > | > is_affected = .depends ~ /libgsl-dev/;
> | > | > is_good = .depends ~ "libgsl26";
> | > | > is_bad = .depends ~ "libgsl25";
> | > | > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | > | >
> | > | > Let me know if I can help otherwise.
> | > | >
> | > | > Cheers, Dirk
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > --
> | > | > https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Sebastian Ramacher
> | > | x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature]
> | >
> | > --
> | > https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
> | >
> |
> | --
> | Sebastian Ramacher
> | [DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature]
>
> --
> https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
>
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: