Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1122167 > unrolled thread

Bug#1022573: transition: procps

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-10-24 11:10 +0200
    Bug#1022573: transition: procps Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2022-11-10 23:10 +0100
      Bug#1022573: transition: procps Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2022-12-21 20:00 +0100
        Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-21 21:50 +0100
          Bug#1022573: transition: procps Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2022-12-21 22:00 +0100
            Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-21 22:40 +0100
              Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 00:40 +0100
        Bug#1022573: transition: procps ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) <czchen@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 17:40 +0100
    Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) <czchen@debian.org> - 2022-12-06 17:40 +0100
      Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2022-12-06 23:40 +0100
        Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) <czchen@debian.org> - 2022-12-07 03:10 +0100
          Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2022-12-08 18:20 +0100
    Bug#1022573: procps transition status at Dec 22 Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 00:50 +0100
    Bug#1022573: transition: procps Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2022-12-28 19:10 +0100
      Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-31 06:00 +0100
        Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-31 06:40 +0100
      Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-31 06:50 +0100
        Bug#1022573: transition: procps Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2022-12-31 08:30 +0100

#1122167 — Bug#1022573: transition: procps

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

The procps library is now finally changing. Over 20 years ago there was
a library to assist with the procps binaries but the API wasn't very
good nor not really intentioned for use outside procps.

The Bad: This change is a major API change. Basically nothing is like
what was before as far as the API is concerned. The library is still
about parsing the /proc filesystem but that's about it.
All packages will need patching and/or updating.

The Good: Upstream/me is able to provide patches as we've done these
fixes already.

Upstream has an issue tracking the dependent packages at[1]

The impacted packages are:
 * apitrace - Untested patches available
 * cpu-x - Upstream updated to new (interim API) minor fixes to get it
   working
 * deepin-screen-recorder - Embeds old pointers into functions, needs
   work
 * intel-gpu-tools - Patches available, upstream working on issue
 * obs-advanced-scene-switches - Have patches for 4.0.0, minor fix to
   get them to new API
 * openscap - Have patches for 4.0.0, minor fix for new API
 * veyon - No patches but a way forward

I can work with the relevant developers to get the API changed.

 - Craig

1: https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/issues/239

Ben file:

title = "procps";
is_affected = .depends ~ /libproc2\-0|libproc\-dev|libprocps[0-9]|libprocps\-dev/;
is_good = .depends ~ /libproc2\-0|libproc\-dev/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /libprocps[0-9]|libprocps\-dev/;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1124351

Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-procps.html

Hi Craig

On 2022-10-24 20:04:22 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> The procps library is now finally changing. Over 20 years ago there was
> a library to assist with the procps binaries but the API wasn't very
> good nor not really intentioned for use outside procps.
> 
> The Bad: This change is a major API change. Basically nothing is like
> what was before as far as the API is concerned. The library is still
> about parsing the /proc filesystem but that's about it.
> All packages will need patching and/or updating.
> 
> The Good: Upstream/me is able to provide patches as we've done these
> fixes already.
> 
> Upstream has an issue tracking the dependent packages at[1]
> 
> The impacted packages are:
>  * apitrace - Untested patches available
>  * cpu-x - Upstream updated to new (interim API) minor fixes to get it
>    working
>  * deepin-screen-recorder - Embeds old pointers into functions, needs
>    work
>  * intel-gpu-tools - Patches available, upstream working on issue
>  * obs-advanced-scene-switches - Have patches for 4.0.0, minor fix to
>    get them to new API
>  * openscap - Have patches for 4.0.0, minor fix for new API
>  * veyon - No patches but a way forward
> 
> I can work with the relevant developers to get the API changed.

Adding the moreinfo tag for now. Please let us know once the bugs for
these issues have been filed.

Cheers

> 
>  - Craig
> 
> 1: https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/issues/239
> 
> Ben file:
> 
> title = "procps";
> is_affected = .depends ~ /libproc2\-0|libproc\-dev|libprocps[0-9]|libprocps\-dev/;
> is_good = .depends ~ /libproc2\-0|libproc\-dev/;
> is_bad = .depends ~ /libprocps[0-9]|libprocps\-dev/;
> 

-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129808

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Dear Craig, ChangZhuo,

This is a heads up that I just added a block against procps to prevent 
the package in unstable from migrating to testing too soon.

The issue is that src:intel-gpu-tools is a key packages but currently 
unfixed. Having procps migrate to testing now would cause it to be 
instantaneously RC buggy, but because it is key, we can't simply remove 
it from bookworm. Can you help fix this package in unstable?

ChangZhuo, src:lxqt-session is in the same boat, but already changed 
it's Build-Dependency in experimental. An upload to unstable would be 
appreciated.

Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129820

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 05:54, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:

> The issue is that src:intel-gpu-tools is a key packages but currently
> unfixed. Having procps migrate to testing now would cause it to be
> instantaneously RC buggy, but because it is key, we can't simply remove
> it from bookworm. Can you help fix this package in unstable?
>
I'm surprised there is an issue:
 * There has been a patch for it for a while now
 * Upstream have the patch and I believe is either in or still being
discussed
 * I've personally built igt Debian packages with that patch

Is there something else you need? This one was one of the easier ones to
fix.

 - Craig

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129821

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On 21-12-2022 21:42, Craig Small wrote:
> Is there something else you need? This one was one of the easier ones to 
> fix.

An actual upload. If the maintainer isn't doing it, I think an NMU is 
appropriate if you're sure of the fix.

Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129823

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 07:46, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:

> An actual upload. If the maintainer isn't doing it, I think an NMU is
> appropriate if you're sure of the fix.
>
Ah, I thought you were the igt maintainer :)

I'll have a go recreating it and uploading it tonight. I'm pretty confident
about the patches but don't use the package myself.

 - Craig

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129837

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

(added the bug report for igt)
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 08:29, Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 07:46, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> An actual upload. If the maintainer isn't doing it, I think an NMU is
>> appropriate if you're sure of the fix.
>>
> Ah, I thought you were the igt maintainer :)
>
> I'll have a go recreating it and uploading it tonight. I'm pretty
> confident about the patches but don't use the package myself.
>
So the issue is that the changelog has updated the version to
1.26+git20221011-1 but this isn't uploaded or tagged.
I can either:
  Attach my patch for 1024221 to bug #1024221 and wait
  Update to 20221011 and add the patch, this both links to libproc2 and
updates the version
  Roll-back to 20220524 and add the patch, keeps the binary the same linked
to libproc2 but moves the changelog back

Ideally, I'd like 20221011 linked to libproc2 but I don't want to release a
new version of intel-gpu-tools as I'm not the maintainer and there might be
a reason its not being updated.

BUT, procps is in transition and this linking needs to happen before the
first freeze milestone so I will upload 20220525 linked to libproc2 if we
get near to running out of time.

 - Craig


>  - Craig
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129885

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 07:54:17PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> ChangZhuo, src:lxqt-session is in the same boat, but already changed it's
> Build-Dependency in experimental. An upload to unstable would be
> appreciated.

Uploaded to unstable


-- 
ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) czchen@{czchen,debian}.org
http://czchen.info/
Key fingerprint = BA04 346D C2E1 FE63 C790  8793 CC65 B0CD EC27 5D5B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1127777 — Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

lxqt-session is also affected by procps transition, and there is
untested patch [0] available.


[0] https://github.com/lxqt/lxqt-session/issues/427#issuecomment-1159589484

-- 
ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) czchen@{czchen,debian}.org
http://czchen.info/
Key fingerprint = BA04 346D C2E1 FE63 C790  8793 CC65 B0CD EC27 5D5B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1127849 — Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition

On 2022-12-07 00:30:30 +0800, ChangZhuo Chen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> lxqt-session is also affected by procps transition, and there is
> untested patch [0] available.

Please avoid an upload until we get the current lxqt situation settled.
I'd prefer to not entangle lxqt with the procps transition.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1127868 — Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:37:15PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2022-12-07 00:30:30 +0800, ChangZhuo Chen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > lxqt-session is also affected by procps transition, and there is
> > untested patch [0] available.
> 
> Please avoid an upload until we get the current lxqt situation settled.
> I'd prefer to not entangle lxqt with the procps transition.

No problem. We will wait for lxqt transition first.


-- 
ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) czchen@{czchen,debian}.org
http://czchen.info/
Key fingerprint = BA04 346D C2E1 FE63 C790  8793 CC65 B0CD EC27 5D5B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1128135 — Bug#1022573: lxqt-session is affected by procps transition

On 2022-12-07 10:02:52 +0800, ChangZhuo Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:37:15PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > On 2022-12-07 00:30:30 +0800, ChangZhuo Chen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > lxqt-session is also affected by procps transition, and there is
> > > untested patch [0] available.
> > 
> > Please avoid an upload until we get the current lxqt situation settled.
> > I'd prefer to not entangle lxqt with the procps transition.
> 
> No problem. We will wait for lxqt transition first.

The libfm-qt and liblxqt transitions are done. There is no risk of
entanglement any longer.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129838 — Bug#1022573: procps transition status at Dec 22

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

#1024218 - apitrace - patch available
#1024219 - cpu-x - patch available at upstream git
#1024220 - deepin-screen-recorder - nil
#1024221 - intel-gpu-tools - patch available upstream, version issues
#1024223 - obs-advanced-scene-switcher - Done!
#1024224 - openscap - Done!
#1024225 - veyon - nil

I have patches for all but some cannot be tested due to the odd way their
build systems work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1130528

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Craig,

With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages 
that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools and guymager. Can you have a 
look and help the maintainer with migrating to the new version of 
procps? open-vm-tools has a new version in unstable that's now unable to 
migrate.

Paul

[1] https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/src_testing_main/latest/amd64.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1130892

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:04, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:

> With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages
> that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools and guymager. Can you have a
> look and help the maintainer with migrating to the new version of
> procps? open-vm-tools has a new version in unstable that's now unable to
> migrate.
>
 Odd they hadn't noticed it not compiling.  I think I have looked at both
these before so I'll see what I can do.

 - Craig

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1130894

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

OK, open-vm-tools doesn't even use the library so that's an easy fix.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 at 15:50, Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:04, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages
>> that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools and guymager. Can you have a
>> look and help the maintainer with migrating to the new version of
>> procps? open-vm-tools has a new version in unstable that's now unable to
>> migrate.
>>
>  Odd they hadn't noticed it not compiling.  I think I have looked at both
> these before so I'll see what I can do.
>
>  - Craig
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1130895

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:04, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:

> With procps migrated to testing, dose [1] is reporting two more packages
> that weren't on our radar: open-vm-tools and guymager. Can you have a
>
Both these packages do not use any symbols from the old library and their
binary packages
do not depend on libprocps.

Looks like old dependencies so the removal of libprocps-dev from their
build dependency line in control is all that is needed.

I can do that, or the respective maintainers can.

 - Craig

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1130900

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Craig,

On 31-12-2022 06:45, Craig Small wrote:
> Looks like old dependencies so the removal of libprocps-dev from their 
> build dependency line in control is all that is needed.
> 
> I can do that, or the respective maintainers can.

Thanks for updating the respective bugs (thanks to Peter).

Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web