Control: block 1115183 by -1 Hi, On 08-09-2025 14:42, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 08, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> wrote:I should have updated the ABI tag for my latest varnish upload even if the ABI is actually compatible, because the version number changed too, but I did not. Hence the need to binNMU varnish-modules.I'm not sure I follow. You say the ABI is compatible, so why is the binNMU needed? Why is the version number relevant?What I meant is that the ABI would be compatible, if only varnish did not check the version number of the modules, so it is not.Hence the need for a binNMU.
I'm not so versed in ABI stuff, but Marco pointed out this bug when I filed bug 1115183 that from his point that bug is block by this one. *If* we were to binNMU varnish-modules, does the rebuild ensure proper versioned dependencies? If not, I think rebuilding can't be the right solution, just papering over the problem. As I see it, in Debian binaries shouldn't be checking versions of other binary packages at runtime, as we should be ensuring the right relations in dependency relations (including Breaks etc), for reasons like this one among others. Either things work as we ship them, or they don't (which would be a bug needing fixing). Whether things work should ideally be tested by running tests, e.g. autopkgtest, which I see happening for varnish-modules.
Paul
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature