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

Bug#1038447: marked as done (librsvg: FTBFS on big-endian architectures: multiple test regressions since September 2022)

Your message dated Sun, 27 Apr 2025 14:33:17 +0200
with message-id <D9HFA0XOZPJD.2473NU8YJVO04@cknow.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1038447: librsvg: FTBFS on big-endian architectures: multiple test regressions since September 2022
has caused the Debian Bug report #1038447,
regarding librsvg: FTBFS on big-endian architectures: multiple test regressions since September 2022
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.)


-- 
1038447: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1038447
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: librsvg
Version: 2.54.5+dfsg-1
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs help
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-s390@lists.debian.org, debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org, rustc@packages.debian.org
Forwarded: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/972

librsvg 2.54.5+dfsg-2 failed to build on s390x, powerpc and ppc64 with
multiple test failures. At first glance, they seem to be the same test
failures, meaning this is about endianness rather than any specific
architecture.

2.54.5+dfsg-2 only contains packaging changes and no code changes,
so I strongly suspect (but have not actually proved) that rebuilding
2.54.5+dfsg-1 with current versions of its dependencies would also
exhibit the same test failures, similar to #1038252 on i386.
The specific tests that are failing here are not the same as #1038252.

The failing tests here are "reftests", which render a SVG image to PNG
and compare the result with a known-good PNG. These are difficult to
investigate in a buildd log, because they're very visual, but the librsvg
buildd logs export the output images using uuencode, and I have extracted
them from the s390x log and used them to open upstream bugs which show
the rendering issue visually:

- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/972
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/973
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/974
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/975
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/976
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/977
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/978
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/979
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/980
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/981
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/982
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/983
- https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/984

In all cases, the standalone steps to reproduce would be: render the SVG
to PNG; look at the SVG and its reference rendering side-by-side; and the
expected result is that they look the same.

The most likely trigger for regressions between September 2022 and now
would seem to be the upgrade of rustc from 1.61 to 1.63, since Cairo
has not had significant changes for a while, none of the rendering
differences involve text/fonts, and librsvg seems to do all its non-text
rendering using vendored Rust libraries or its own Rust code rather than
an external library like libpng.

    smcv

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 0.44.0-1

On Thu Nov 7, 2024 at 11:38 PM CET, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Tue Mar 12, 2024 at 11:19 AM CET, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Control: tags -1 + fixed-upstream
>> Control: block -1 by 1061616
>> Control: retitle 1061616 pixman: New upstream version 0.43.4
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 10:23:45 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 05:13:59 +0000, Gayathri Berli wrote:
>> > > we found out that while
>> > > upgrading libpixman (libpixman-1-0:s390x) package from version 0.40.0-1 to
>> > > version 0.42.2-1, the test suites failed in the librsvg.
>> ...
>> > > There is one open issues in pixman regarding to this commit changes which
>> > > effecting the big-endian systems.
>>
>> I've been told in private email that
>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pixman/pixman/-/issues/78 was fixed in the
>> recent pixman 0.43.4 release.
>
> Version 0.44.0-1 has been uploaded to the Debian archive, so this bug
> should be fixed.
> But I'd rather leave closing of this bug up to you.

The commit that fixed it was this one:

ac485a9b668e ("Revert the changes to fix the problem in big-endian architectures")
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pixman/pixman/-/commit/ac485a9b668e013eb336592727cb8e52549a6ab9

And that was indeed part of upstream's 0.43.4 release.
The first version with the fix that was uploaded to Debian was 0.44.0-1,
so I'm closing this bug with that version.

If it's still present, feel free to reopen the bug (or file a new one).

Cheers,
  Diederik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: