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

  • How painful is a lib(fuse) .so version bump for a distribution

    From Bernd Schubert@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 22:00:01 2024
    Hello,

    I would like to ask how painful is a library (libfuse) .so for a
    distribution?


    As you can see here https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/pull/1038
    there are some arguments not to do so.
    The pull request above explains why and adds even more breakage,
    when we already have chance for that. But it would be good to
    know how much trouble it is for a distribution.


    Thanks,
    Bernd

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrey Rakhmatullin@21:1/5 to Bernd Schubert on Wed Sep 25 22:40:02 2024
    On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 09:38:26PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
    I would like to ask how painful is a library (libfuse) .so for a distribution?

    Not at all, if all revdeps build fine with the bumped version.

    "I'm assuming that distributions do not recompile packages against a new library version, unless absolutely needed - if I'm right library ABI
    changes cause silent issues." sounds very wrong to me. We always
    recompile packages against a new soname when that is uploaded, and as we
    try to keep packages uptodate a new soname is normally uploaded every time
    it's bumped by the upstream.

    --
    WBR, wRAR

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

    iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmb0cxQtFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh dbkQAKnW9WeZKaIR+s3Eah2f0b5kcEg8MkL4CLR6arH8B53zSWpGWfR1Y9m1AlbL fhQoptEkIORtpORnDdywQYJQYtEyy+HddvjCDq7OOd355YeTw6+v0ambNV5Jj5uJ bvzp2E1oV8Tp5aVn4NeMthBwroJb+yU0FD8NGRMPe6sLUyOPejkAHiJaZiH9j4w5 I04MHvNWFHcFD4/lBWfDixXq7xPzceTA9Nd+rXxPgNDXZNllBytcAPgDx2EYoIMD jq81/1Bcmgslm4bQDQLPmqgcM67eeKAt8IhqV9ZAVkoAWW8IxI2iix+bEf+yEjy7 BzPXOVWCs1Xb6IcIK7cLE06BNiWMGEaMG0t/Z/CT+Ib6tg/qI6npbypQnBRNq7YI 0M9BZLzSnNjz1nQklXGZOHr3yINUIbFJvQIkFmAlyBJg3kgOE8Ad6HSAbKdHw9ba TFajj6bOMp2ZaluklcTnVJ2zbvwUzrzOZA4HpCCiM4w8sCksjvVU/OTlNRuQGQhp 39N4shJ2aRY0o0b5ZN+zFOH/08CK6vf+S4TTF7Bkxc8xDDwTtCXuouioZSFBVa/u FCOQW0qoiSa+ikdiNPFQYBuscZT80z0eLWsZJeuZAvo8M1i2uYnXSL6U5IQ++vb1 JNc6oKUuBpekDjKI/NhRJYgBoLRiaOurII9HnBymhGK82Fol
    =FXjK
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Hutchings@21:1/5 to Andrey Rakhmatullin on Thu Sep 26 00:50:01 2024
    On Thu, 2024-09-26 at 01:31 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
    On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 09:38:26PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
    I would like to ask how painful is a library (libfuse) .so for a distribution?

    Not at all, if all revdeps build fine with the bumped version.

    "I'm assuming that distributions do not recompile packages against a new library version, unless absolutely needed - if I'm right library ABI
    changes cause silent issues." sounds very wrong to me. We always
    recompile packages against a new soname when that is uploaded, and as we
    try to keep packages uptodate a new soname is normally uploaded every time it's bumped by the upstream.

    But we *don't* rebuild when there is not an soversion bump, so the
    previous unintended ABI changes in libfuse3-3 may well have caused
    silent issues for its reverse-dependencies.

    Ben.

    --
    Ben Hutchings
    If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of.


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

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErCspvTSmr92z9o8157/I7JWGEQkFAmb0kyMACgkQ57/I7JWG EQm1sg/+Izjpu/M2SeWdTIvZE2pW7imYbGLlorosAt8prTz7J2BhDsQKM/R5lELg 8t68GcJFtpcH0qnpQZsjYMj1mixg/UwlrRYc97H9sUNW2ZaCF/QB4nZxuW2L+UZj EJPvoIHa6eGVTxROXTwZYI2h97nMoviKXQvzDlHlqojLbOhlo1O3NCIRzMXOBtXk VVGYAJlnpxSneMSyPjQ8upfWavahcx9/0p4Myz1W+o6KwiycogRWTT51o5A1MZIA PqXXo4r9eqiOngnxAzsmxHi+KPEBdHuwUTAOBIr167Dv4dak8dC39bI5Sl2wwauQ L3MaOe+lhUT5qxRv1QGeCADAVTFTC3ruaPwsbH8Ppzc/D1XPvPqiojAI5TcSp/gm qmFGA7rhO2FafUz7EJJeleVXBryvKML431voRz4iCNGAKY6a1jGRY8mbG09eDa8m FMC0LliWH5kt743dsz95LbVOhmp/n9nVnAJPqcOeVG05BLFyDmIG5c7rTPt9IV+l 38h/L0bc5pSsgMvPTGURmJTLO4yRvMwTer8GmoVy6nfiZpnKqdzG+elKm7vl0p+r oi1xs/gNpMuttLLQfUwOOn/dQfprqByY2fWv//yafKbyj/kZ7OSCqC/2yhBPxsJk Pp5CZYnMtB9YFmfqQDPP8OYlNqyDal6a+2F6OYM/dzDlgosVzf8=
    =ktet
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrey Rakhmatullin@21:1/5 to Ben Hutchings on Thu Sep 26 08:40:01 2024
    On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 12:48:03AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
    I would like to ask how painful is a library (libfuse) .so for a distribution?

    Not at all, if all revdeps build fine with the bumped version.

    "I'm assuming that distributions do not recompile packages against a new library version, unless absolutely needed - if I'm right library ABI changes cause silent issues." sounds very wrong to me. We always
    recompile packages against a new soname when that is uploaded, and as we try to keep packages uptodate a new soname is normally uploaded every time it's bumped by the upstream.

    But we *don't* rebuild when there is not an soversion bump, so the
    previous unintended ABI changes in libfuse3-3 may well have caused
    silent issues for its reverse-dependencies.

    Right, when read like that it's correct.

    --
    WBR, wRAR

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

    iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmb1AEgtFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh nIEP/1UuE4jZKFauoMNn9n/7Y5d6h3hYOm2N+ySu9JJ/ueCncZJaoZyrgTXJ9eFf 3YfEjLHnC0s/zyIg7LU3nQVHnKJsjVdstZdkTfZMl76SCWXKxhXTDasuT9Pebjl2 Q6TVXxJqxSYdnMFuNaf5AjS80Az2q54lFVnbkjb67vbCKDexGh/w4ZzBfVt23BRO b6ZtD0vwvNz2j1rztuQ5QLmyzibmL9GJcVIzwQ7iFp+XXqJlixoXWDPaRL/nmhtB 0BecQWS/6sE6UMBlfS7WDQ6+ydQ0KuJMOCgqEolRD3zLBA53FCq21R8qzl+0vtsC /FfHupCbuYKU6f0hhk2601lubfA4jTlOkxPAeW+RGsY+T4MffXmASJCs8In/wl2m qRL8uhnvpPMu5SrruD0a/zF5FDI1HrUfJvAIcEAcxQNR2SjuWS58ZP3SeBzj6GJu lnP+OiP9auVSAig9vOO+lY53yWxps2tW68zuAUN7mVv4LYwFK7OHzG9cdGSWN4YZ 4HX/m1KdCDsB1ZuqZDlFsrQrpF1CUiy+8ra/pjeJ5jmzN01mXkqyjkWOm3S28EHU ZYrSvCI8F0xvils8KrYL1DBGsaBdN7LjIAGFeqwxnUEjDEQgC3pk2jmV0FLFzLMm leLnBxW1xnm1ZPXrRdtoDDKfW3Dw8irB+EezYn9beWJmjl7t
    =3VcM
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?TMOhc3psw7MgQsO2c3rDtnJtw@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Sep 26 21:20:01 2024
    On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 9:46 PM Bernd Schubert
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    I would like to ask how painful is a library (libfuse) .so for a distribution?
    In what sense? Upstream ABI breakages don't help, I wait for 3.17 at
    least if that helps - not upgrading it to middle versions.

    As you can see here https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/pull/1038
    there are some arguments not to do so.
    The pull request above explains why and adds even more breakage,
    when we already have chance for that. But it would be good to
    know how much trouble it is for a distribution.
    Debian doesn't recompile dependent packages for new releases. Doing
    library transitions (due to new soname) is an everyday thing for us.
    The workflow is documented [1], I will not repeat it here. There are
    forty-two dependent packages that need to be rebuilt for such a case,
    not a big number. I'm open to schedule the transition if upstream
    changes the soname.

    Regards,
    Laszlo/GCS
    [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernd Schubert@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 27 11:30:02 2024
    Hi László,

    On 9/26/24 21:12, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote:
    On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 9:46 PM Bernd Schubert
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    I would like to ask how painful is a library (libfuse) .so for a
    distribution?
    In what sense? Upstream ABI breakages don't help, I wait for 3.17 at
    least if that helps - not upgrading it to middle versions.

    As you can see here https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/pull/1038
    there are some arguments not to do so.
    The pull request above explains why and adds even more breakage,
    when we already have chance for that. But it would be good to
    know how much trouble it is for a distribution.
    Debian doesn't recompile dependent packages for new releases. Doing
    library transitions (due to new soname) is an everyday thing for us.
    The workflow is documented [1], I will not repeat it here. There are forty-two dependent packages that need to be rebuilt for such a case,
    not a big number. I'm open to schedule the transition if upstream
    changes the soname.

    thank you very much! So no issue for Debian :)


    Best,
    Bernd

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