1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL

  • t64 suffix

    From Mathieu Malaterre@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 23 20:20:01 2024
    Dear all,

    I am trying to find the status of t64 suffix, but I cannot find it
    neither in my mailbox nor on the page:

    https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time#Transition_in_place

    What is expected from Debian packager now ?

    1. Remove the t64 suffix upon next version upload ?
    2. Keep the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian warning (for now) ?

    Thanks all
    -M

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefano Rivera@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 23 20:30:01 2024
    Hi Mathieu (2024.05.23_18:14:20_+0000)
    What is expected from Debian packager now ?

    1. Remove the t64 suffix upon next version upload ?

    You can remove it at the next SONAME transition (ABI bump)

    2. Keep the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian warning (for now) ?

    That should only occur on architectures that weren't impacted by the t64 migration. I imagine t64 could be explicitly ignored in lintian (and
    someone has probably filed a bug about that).

    Stefano

    --
    Stefano Rivera
    http://tumbleweed.org.za/
    +1 415 683 3272

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sven Joachim@21:1/5 to Stefano Rivera on Thu May 23 22:40:02 2024
    On 2024-05-23 18:22 +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote:

    Hi Mathieu (2024.05.23_18:14:20_+0000)
    What is expected from Debian packager now ?

    1. Remove the t64 suffix upon next version upload ?

    You can remove it at the next SONAME transition (ABI bump)

    2. Keep the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian warning (for now) ?

    That should only occur on architectures that weren't impacted by the t64 migration.

    No, it occurs on all architectures because we changed the package names
    but not the sonames.

    I imagine t64 could be explicitly ignored in lintian (and
    someone has probably filed a bug about that).

    Yes, #1067040[1]. IIUC, the issue should be fixed in lintian git
    already[2].

    Cheers,
    Sven


    1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067040
    2. https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/07167eebb697d74d84627b275d8aeff4ebf32f7e

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steve Langasek@21:1/5 to Mathieu Malaterre on Mon May 27 22:30:01 2024
    On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:14:20PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    Dear all,

    I am trying to find the status of t64 suffix, but I cannot find it
    neither in my mailbox nor on the page:

    https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time#Transition_in_place

    What is expected from Debian packager now ?

    1. Remove the t64 suffix upon next version upload ?

    Does the new version have a new soname? if not it would be incorrect to undo this transition.

    2. Keep the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian warning (for now) ?

    What package are you seeing such a warning on? The mass-NMUs included a lintian override to suppress this warning.

    --
    Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErEg/aN5yj0PyIC/KVo0w8yGyEz0FAmZU7F8ACgkQVo0w8yGy Ez1ZsQ//Ws5n53NEfn+T66UUtI9kS3izohe36myIKM4v8B2P+8nzDG40EQDzMal/ Rrml8dolzzNUhzAyI9mp24ZSDsrqx9fhmMz8ZrHnlBykbUkFi+XOycU/iIJhDzBm 4eO2QXPIsUSAE2jNfJ6XgZ4swZq88kY5EbcKyK8AfsE67gYtJ0ghEHUt7fMmL05V DWDFNgysGEp9u8BpxCTCpZj33MT9dmBVu/fyYEr8GwIbYtl9f4YcC255r+PDwcPK 7jt/qnrkJFRbaH2qYoJ+l+rsVyK/PSJ1T0Nve1Z4JOCG1AAP9pTsbzMCWMQZ9zwm FKUWvpnsPt0RT1s3sp2CAUDtl6sbRI+eq2c0HFWJEIcb94GBg+z2vcZ7IvAadSLK Aj77ton+ViIuwl+HKoCb+/6BlgRMPzgt0ypDvzEk2JDLwgdtccLeQPF4ErvE6WD8 x1Ww60tSuu2PK8Mt6sxqL93/lvQtU+Kd7jo4JuuvhozOT6QVbiyApr0O0aapMhFH OBPxzMfnwGEJ0Xiz5A5myYAqwrI6CSxhL6Yr+PLHUOJ96rcbNRG73Yb6jmdkFem4 ycFfVJO8dfHCmOe1LODW
  • From Mathieu Malaterre@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue May 28 11:10:02 2024
    On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:26 PM Steve Langasek <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:14:20PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    Dear all,

    I am trying to find the status of t64 suffix, but I cannot find it
    neither in my mailbox nor on the page:

    https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time#Transition_in_place

    What is expected from Debian packager now ?

    1. Remove the t64 suffix upon next version upload ?

    Does the new version have a new soname? if not it would be incorrect to undo this transition.

    Ack. Now that makes sense.

    2. Keep the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian warning (for now) ?

    What package are you seeing such a warning on? The mass-NMUs included a lintian override to suppress this warning.

    I think I am missing something big here...anyway here it goes:

    * https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=highway

    (I'll fix the symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision asap).

    Thanks all for your kind help
    -M

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephen Kitt@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 1 18:40:02 2024
    On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:00:34 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:26 PM Steve Langasek <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:14:20PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
    2. Keep the package-name-doesnt-match-sonames lintian warning (for now)
    ?

    What package are you seeing such a warning on? The mass-NMUs included a lintian override to suppress this warning.

    I think I am missing something big here...anyway here it goes:

    * https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=highway

    (I'll fix the symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision asap).

    The output there indicates that the override added in https://salsa.debian.org/debian-phototools-team/highway/-/commit/9c4e2b47532c2f8aa781cfd0d11764cc54324e81
    doesn’t take into account all the libraries shipped in the package; all you need to do is update the override to

    libhwy1t64: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libhwy-contrib1 libhwy-test1 libhwy1

    That will fix both warnings.

    Regards,

    Stephen

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEnPVX/hPLkMoq7x0ggNMC9Yhtg5wFAmZbTV0ACgkQgNMC9Yht g5zF6w//YZOdqjBh+JW3Q4Ho2yGrxC6hVPlMlMFfWQ85ic7GWtgPOex9c4mAkdOK fMBXQ7iyWPMGHvAWmgRMFo8H6ngKrLwgP0RtEqRjol3u/HTjWIpZloy6OkK/kJ1C 9c6nfVXlW/tjGj3ulbH1/8Z1YZY8GNZ+ICRv/K+FNhxDtN3Z3N38Rgke23o8XI8s VmAwepEyapuU226pJIOs3/8Auh0zWDqDZLk/SvMyd+sM79ucxMeyeQJI62+5Od4H N42kv1jVjxdj3lGufBzSy4Y0SiPcc0oPluxDCDLYkYVZAOV0FWzzDNauID80IMB5 03YfZ4U5YHOicNVIGFPUcz2jCjpgbMivudvXfOkmrL8Q6qJciLALVIjzA7OZuRH3 6q0YFoc9FJ4qALmugEpcybvS0KEWUPiKnOqH3krkSo6MrGRcR6fDULUZrsk2OTKb 0+LdKy/l7I5K8RMslmo33EzV9T5ZZ4+oS+ZZ30RvA/T1g2JcvtYg66hxGMASJVfW rO8aHfme7W8sI1MW+kK9iDYfh+SMk8ggaF4YDEpQYrnVsFR3CEIl6olfmeqRfd3E dZ5Qj6bR4qE9zszgq71NAcGB0BVfn2X8f1XTv9vi6uz6rULBUpWrSXYG3+1V/zrj yYS4/hzCdb48fg/VkhQPW6IzfLOWsbKEJkncWJgYsnZLqCCCes0=
    =bWa/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)