Yann, thank you for the detailed analysis. This is very helpful in giving us confidence in making changes to the stable releases.
The addition of a libzstd1, and the update of zstd itself to use it, sounds reasonable to me. An additional thing for Regression Potential though I think? We're deliberately breaking the API provided by libzstd-dev in Xenial then, according to Yann's comment 10. If a user is relying on some local build against libzstd-dev then this proposed SRU will break it. We should call this out and make a decision on it. I presume Andreas and Yann are both in favor? I think this is what Adam was referring to in https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/12/06/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:12 ? It doesn't sound counter to the intent to me. Any opinions on using libzstd1-dev in the SRU instead to mitigate this? Or are you asking to specifically not do that and change the API of libzstd-dev itself? I'm not particularly worried about justifications for Zesty. It's about to go EOL anyway. Anything that is acceptable for Xenial should also be acceptable for Zesty unless I'm missing some particular case where the circumstances are different. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717040 Title: Please backport libzstd 1.3.1+dfsg-1 (universe) from artful To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libzstd/+bug/1717040/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
