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


Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1144656 > unrolled thread

Bug#1034710: dpkg-gensymbols: Add higher check level for unnecessary entries in symbols file

Started byAndrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org>
First post2023-04-22 12:20 +0200
Last post2023-06-09 04:30 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

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


Contents

  Bug#1034710: dpkg-gensymbols: Add higher check level for unnecessary entries in symbols file Andrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org> - 2023-04-22 12:20 +0200
    Bug#1034710: dpkg-gensymbols: Add higher check level for unnecessary entries in symbols file Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2023-06-09 04:30 +0200

#1144656 — Bug#1034710: dpkg-gensymbols: Add higher check level for unnecessary entries in symbols file

FromAndrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org>
Date2023-04-22 12:20 +0200
SubjectBug#1034710: dpkg-gensymbols: Add higher check level for unnecessary entries in symbols file
Message-ID<Gnivv-3IrT-1@gated-at.bofh.it>

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

Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.21.21
Severity: wishlist

When building libvirt, dpkg-gensymbols currently produces the
following output:

  dpkg-gensymbols: warning: debian/libvirt0/DEBIAN/symbols doesn't match completely debian/libvirt0.symbols
  --- debian/libvirt0.symbols (libvirt0_9.2.0-2_amd64)
  +++ dpkg-gensymbolsFLVUCu	2023-04-22 11:43:15.646242440 +0200
  @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
   libvirt-admin.so.0 libvirt0 #MINVER#
  - (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18
  +#MISSING: 9.2.0-2# (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18
    (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_2.0.0 2.0.0~rc1
    (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_3.0.0 3.0.0
    (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_8.6.0 8.9.0

This is because debian/libvirt0.symbols contains

  libvirt-admin.so.0 libvirt0 #MINVER#
   *@LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18

even though no LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 symbol was ever added to the
library.

It would be nice if such a mistake on the maintainer's part could be
reported in a way that can't be easily missed or ignored, i.e. a
build failure. After the maintainer has explicitly opted into this
behavior by setting DPKG_GENSYMBOLS_CHECK_LEVEL, of course :)

-- 
Andrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org>
Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1149080

FromGuillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
Date2023-06-09 04:30 +0200
Message-ID<GEA2Z-eDoo-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1144656
Hi!

On Sat, 2023-04-22 at 12:07:07 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.21.21
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> When building libvirt, dpkg-gensymbols currently produces the
> following output:
> 
>   dpkg-gensymbols: warning: debian/libvirt0/DEBIAN/symbols doesn't match completely debian/libvirt0.symbols
>   --- debian/libvirt0.symbols (libvirt0_9.2.0-2_amd64)
>   +++ dpkg-gensymbolsFLVUCu	2023-04-22 11:43:15.646242440 +0200
>   @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>    libvirt-admin.so.0 libvirt0 #MINVER#
>   - (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18
>   +#MISSING: 9.2.0-2# (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18
>     (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_2.0.0 2.0.0~rc1
>     (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_3.0.0 3.0.0
>     (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_8.6.0 8.9.0
> 
> This is because debian/libvirt0.symbols contains
> 
>   libvirt-admin.so.0 libvirt0 #MINVER#
>    *@LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18
> 
> even though no LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 symbol was ever added to the
> library.
> 
> It would be nice if such a mistake on the maintainer's part could be
> reported in a way that can't be easily missed or ignored, i.e. a
> build failure. After the maintainer has explicitly opted into this
> behavior by setting DPKG_GENSYMBOLS_CHECK_LEVEL, of course :)

I think this is a good idea, and I'm planning on implementing it. The
problem is that I don't know for example in Debian how many packages
might FTBFS due to this. So off-hand adding this as part of an
existing check level might be problematic. Adding it as a higher level
would imply requiring more checks than the ones the maintainer might
want to handle, so that does not look like a nice option, even if it
would be the safest one. I guess if the check selection had been
implemented as an union of strings instead of integer levels, it would
be more extensible.

Thanks,
Guillem

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


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


csiph-web