On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 10:48 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:01:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 12:37 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > On 15.12.2020 23:29, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > > What you - as Fedora packager - find most time consuming on packaging? > > > > > > ABI check between shared libraries updates. > > > > > > Bodhi used to run abidiff automated tests, but after Fedora Infra moved > > > to the new datacenter, they disappeared. > > > > Bodhi doesn't run any tests, it only shows results from other systems. > > > > abi check was run by Taskotron, which has been retired. The approximate > > replacement is Fedora CI, which should run rpminspect (among other > > tests). rpminspect runs abidiff. So there should still be abidiff > > results, if Fedora CI is doing what it says it should. > > > > For instance, here is the most recent Rawhide update from you: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-af9f093288 > > > > If we click on "Automated Tests", we see a result for > > "fedora-ci.koji-build.rpminspect.static-analysis". Clicking on it takes > > us to: > > https://osci-jenkins-1.ci.fedoraproject.org/job/fedora-ci/job/rpminspect-pipeline/job/master/2629/testReport/(root)/tests/ > > > > where we can see the "/abidiff" results: > > https://osci-jenkins-1.ci.fedoraproject.org/job/fedora-ci/job/rpminspect-pipeline/job/master/2629/testReport/(root)/tests/_abidiff/ > > > > are OK. I don't know of a known failure case to check it's failing when > > it should, though. > > Well, rpm broke the buildroot eariler today so it should have failed > this right? > > https://osci-jenkins-1.ci.fedoraproject.org/job/fedora-ci/job/rpminspect-pipeline/job/master/2840/testReport/(root)/tests/_abidiff/ > > but... no? > > "Comparing rpm-4.16.1.1-1.fc34 with older rpm-4.16.1-1.fc34 found in the > "f34-updates" Koji tag." > > it's not checking the actual previous build?
See I thought that too at first, and was going to cite it, but then I thought, wait. The problem isn't that the update *actually broke the ABI*, right? The problem is that it *unnecessarily bumped the soname*. I think abidiff's job is to catch the *opposite* problem, isn't it? Where the ABI changes but the soname isn't bumped. I would need to check, but I suspect possibly in this case abidiff just wouldn't do anything at all, because what it would seem to make sense to do is run it only on pairs of shared libraries with identical sonames from the two package builds. When the soname is bumped, it wouldn't make sense to run abidiff, because you'd *expect* the ABI to change in that case. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
