Your message dated Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:47:42 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: Bug#971668: libsane: broke ABI has caused the Debian Bug report #971687, regarding sane-backends: dropped unused symbols without changing SONAME 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 [email protected] immediately.) -- 971687: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=971687 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: libsane Version: 1.0.31-2 Severity: grave From 1.0.31-1~experimental1: * debian/libsane1.symbols: - Remove 7 not longer available symbols. Hence provinding libsane that depends on libsane1 with a different ABI is wrong. Cheers -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers unstable-debug APT policy: (650, 'unstable-debug'), (650, 'unstable'), (601, 'testing'), (600, 'experimental-debug'), (600, 'buildd-unstable'), (600, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 5.8.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages libsane depends on: ii libsane1 1.0.31-2 libsane recommends no packages. libsane suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Lets just discuss the useless package rename here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=908681 Since we didn't break anything in the archive. G. On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:18:41 +0200 Gianfranco Costamagna <[email protected]> wrote: > control: severity -1 important > control: reassign -1 src:sane-backends > control: retitle -1 sane-backends: dropped unused symbols without changing > SONAME > > > Hello Vincent and Sebastian > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 03:48:26 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Control: clone -1 -2 > > Control: reassign -2 libsane1 1.0.31-2 > > Control: retitle -2 libsane1: broke ABI > > > > On 2020-10-04 18:03:30 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > Package: libsane > > > Version: 1.0.31-2 > > > Severity: grave > > > > > > From 1.0.31-1~experimental1: > > > > > > * debian/libsane1.symbols: > > > - Remove 7 not longer available symbols. > > > > > > Hence provinding libsane that depends on libsane1 with a different ABI > > > is wrong. > > > > Not just libsane is wrong, but libsane1 (which contains the library > > itself) too (at least for programs compiled by users). > > > > Seriously? > > this is the list of "dropped symbols" > > - testing_append_commands_node@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_known_commands_input_failed@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_last_known_seq@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_record_backend@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_xml_doc@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_xml_next_tx_node@Base 1.0.29 > - testing_xml_path@Base 1.0.29 > > > Please find a single reference of something in the archive, or outside the > archive, that ever used > part of such (not meant to be exported) API. > > The *bug* was to export them in the previous version, not to remove them, > because meant to be internal symbols. > > We had other references in the archive history, where symbols incorrectly > exposed were dropped without > the need to change the ABI. > > We discussed many times already, few people (including I guess the sponsor > for that particular upload), and at least > 3 other DDs agreeded that there was no need to change the SONAME just because > of something that was not really > used anywhere in the world, included self-compiled stuff. > > All the RFS bugs for sane-backends are public, you can find lots of > discussion about the topic, and help > in better developing the package. > > I think this is a non-issue, I would like to have some real bugs before > talking about the Sex Of Angels... [1] > > I also think its better have one single bug, instead of having two of them, > for the very same source package.
--- End Message ---
