On 2021-11-21 16:27:03, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > Can you please chime in (as you did in the earlier exchanges when Sebastian > explained to us how to set valus triplet for libtool via configure.ac) ? > > On 21 November 2021 at 23:00, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > | On 2021-11-09 12:54:44 -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | > > | > On 8 November 2021 at 22:14, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > | > | Control: tags -1 moreinfo > | > | Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gsl.html > | > | > | > | On 2021-10-31 14:29:40 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | > | > > | > | > Package: release.debian.org > | > | > Severity: normal > | > | > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > | > | > Usertags: transition > | > | > > | > | > GNU GSL 2.7 was release a few months ago, and we now realised (in the > | > | > discussion of #993324 which also included upstream) that the upstream > libtool > | > | > instruction were in error by _not_ leading to a new sonumber. This was > | > | > corrected in (source package) gsl upload 2.7-3 to experimental, which > built > | > | > well. > | > | > | > | What's the status of the fix upstream? Was there any progress? Otherwise > | > | we're gonna repeat that with the next upstream release. > | > > | > Those are two distinct issues. Upstream, I think we all agreed in the > thread > | > also recorded in the BTS, made an omission in this release where a new > soname > | > was needed, but wasn't given. This happens. So now we need a new soname > | > __because the ABI/API changed__. > | > | Yes, the ABI changed and we need a new SONAME. This would ideally be > | done upstream, though. Even better would be a new release with that change. > > Yes or no. We could proceed with the patch based on your suggestion. That > would be "lighterweight" as we would not require upstream work right now. > > | As far as I am aware, the bug report lacks any mail from Patrick which > > He did participate earlier. Some of it may have been private mail between him > and myself; I'd have to check.
I reply from Patrick isn't recored in the BTS and I also can't find one in my inbox. Cheers > > | would currently mean that we'd have a Debian-specific SONAME. If we go > | ahead with that, we will end up in on of the following cases: > | > | 1. Upstream bumps the SONAME as we discussed it in the bug report. > | Given the changes in [1], the next release of gsl would then have a > | SONAME of libgsl.so.26, but with an incompatible ABI compared to what we > | would have in the archive. > > I didn't catch that aspect. Yes us moving to libgsl.so.26 by ourself now > would make it impossible to use that soname later :-/ > > | 2. Upstream bumps the SONAME to a version higher than 26. > > (That would be my stylistic preference. If the next GSL is 2.8, why not take > 28? I may be unaware of other style 'customs' here.) > > | (3. Upstream simply ignores the issue) > | > | If 1. happens, we'd be unable to sync up with upstream's SONAME (there's > | a good reason why we tend to avoid Debian-specific SONAMEs). > | > | Patrick, what are your planes? > > We're all ears :) > > Dirk > > | Best > | Sebastian > | > | [1] > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gsl.git/commit/?id=191bf01a38e590dd0df8aa571accbbd331bfee07 > | > | > > | > That has happened before, and that is why we had transitions in the past. > | > | > | > | > > | > But not all previous releases had soname changes. I have maintained GSL > here > | > for about 20 years and I think this is about the third transition. I would > | > call that defensible. > | > > | > The release team does of course have a broader view, and I am always keen > to > | > hear your thoughts. > | > > | > Cheers, Dirk > | > > | > | Cheers > | > | > | > | > > | > | > I would like to ask for a formal transition. As we saw with failing > tests in > | > | > dependent packages, binNMUs will not work for all package (but > possibly > | > | > "most"). > | > | > > | > | > Tentative ben file below. > | > | > > | > | > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | > | > title = "gsl 2.7 transition"; > | > | > is_affected = .depends ~ /libgsl-dev/; > | > | > is_good = .depends ~ "libgsl26"; > | > | > is_bad = .depends ~ "libgsl25"; > | > | > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | > | > > | > | > Let me know if I can help otherwise. > | > | > > | > | > Cheers, Dirk > | > | > > | > | > > | > | > -- > | > | > https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > | > | > > | > | > | > | -- > | > | Sebastian Ramacher > | > | x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature] > | > > | > -- > | > https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > | > > | > | -- > | Sebastian Ramacher > | [DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature] > > -- > https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > -- Sebastian Ramacher