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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.rc > #381247 > unrolled thread

Bug#1088523: Acknowledgement (oxigraph: FTBFS with librocksdb9.7-dev)

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1088523: Acknowledgement (oxigraph: FTBFS with librocksdb9.7-dev) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-01-12 13:50 +0100
    Bug#1088523: Acknowledgement (oxigraph: FTBFS with librocksdb9.7-dev) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-01-12 19:10 +0100
      Bug#1088523: Acknowledgement (oxigraph: FTBFS with librocksdb9.7-dev) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-01-12 19:30 +0100
        Bug#1088523: Acknowledgement (oxigraph: FTBFS with librocksdb9.7-dev) Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> - 2025-01-25 06:50 +0100
          Bug#1088523: Acknowledgement (oxigraph: FTBFS with librocksdb9.7-dev) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2025-02-02 15:10 +0100

#381247 — Bug#1088523: Acknowledgement (oxigraph: FTBFS with librocksdb9.7-dev)

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

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2025-01-12 13:33:43)
> * main change between upstream rocksdb 9.8.4 and 9.10.0 seemingly is
>   changes to how they do auto-triggered compaction of databases,
>   including what they call an "[i]mortant follow-up" to a memory leak:
>   https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/13106
> 
> It seems likely to me that the bug is in rocksdb rather than oxigraph,
> so I am reassigning.
> 
> Perhaps this issue is also fixed in v9.8.1, not in Debian but mentioned
> since November in related upstream bugreport:
> https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/13066

Please ignore last remark above: What was fixed since November was the
main patch for the memory leak, whereas the "[i]mortant follow-up" is
only included with 9.10.0.

I have tried cherry-pick and apply that one git commit to 9.8.4-1, but
that still fails for me, so something else is involved as well.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#381279

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

I can try importing latest upstream and run reverse builds for all
dependants.

One challenge I have at the moment is that upstream is not responding on
GitHub PRs and ignoring fixes and also not publishing any policy of which
RocksDB version is likely good for long-term maintenance. Thus there is no
clear basis for selecting which of the multiple new RocksDB versions is
most suitable for Debian.

On Sun., Jan. 12, 2025, 04:39 Jonas Smedegaard, <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2025-01-12 13:33:43)
> > * main change between upstream rocksdb 9.8.4 and 9.10.0 seemingly is
> >   changes to how they do auto-triggered compaction of databases,
> >   including what they call an "[i]mortant follow-up" to a memory leak:
> >   https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/13106
> >
> > It seems likely to me that the bug is in rocksdb rather than oxigraph,
> > so I am reassigning.
> >
> > Perhaps this issue is also fixed in v9.8.1, not in Debian but mentioned
> > since November in related upstream bugreport:
> > https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/13066
>
> Please ignore last remark above: What was fixed since November was the
> main patch for the memory leak, whereas the "[i]mortant follow-up" is
> only included with 9.10.0.
>
> I have tried cherry-pick and apply that one git commit to 9.8.4-1, but
> that still fails for me, so something else is involved as well.
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>  * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#381282

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

Quoting Otto Kekäläinen (2025-01-12 19:08:05)
> I can try importing latest upstream and run reverse builds for all
> dependants.

Thanks, that sounds quite helpful.

> One challenge I have at the moment is that upstream is not responding on
> GitHub PRs and ignoring fixes and also not publishing any policy of which
> RocksDB version is likely good for long-term maintenance. Thus there is no
> clear basis for selecting which of the multiple new RocksDB versions is
> most suitable for Debian.

I have no opinion on that bit, but appreciate your sharing it,
regardless.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#382562

Hi!

Sorry for the long delay, I didn't have time to import new RocksDB
until yesterday and today. I have now a MR pending at
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rocksdb/-/merge_requests/9 for
co-maintainer review and will upload to unstable hopefully soon, with
high likelihood that this fixes #1088523.

Unfortunately my automatic reverse-dependency test no longer picks up
Oxigraph, so I haven't confirmed if this actually fixed it or not. I
need to iterate on it. It did however pick up the other dependencies
and they are all building fine.

If Jeremy has interest in getting this uploaded quicker, and you like
using Salsa, feel free to add LGTM etc comment on
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rocksdb/-/merge_requests/9 so it has
one extra pair of eyeballs to help us avoid unintentional regressions.

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

#383366

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

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2025-01-25 10:15:01)
> Quoting Otto Kekäläinen (2025-01-25 06:41:58)
> > Sorry for the long delay, I didn't have time to import new RocksDB
> > until yesterday and today. I have now a MR pending at
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rocksdb/-/merge_requests/9 for
> > co-maintainer review and will upload to unstable hopefully soon, with
> > high likelihood that this fixes #1088523.
> > 
> > Unfortunately my automatic reverse-dependency test no longer picks up
> > Oxigraph, so I haven't confirmed if this actually fixed it or not. I
> > need to iterate on it. It did however pick up the other dependencies
> > and they are all building fine.
> > 
> > If Jeremy has interest in getting this uploaded quicker, and you like
> > using Salsa, feel free to add LGTM etc comment on
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rocksdb/-/merge_requests/9 so it has
> > one extra pair of eyeballs to help us avoid unintentional regressions.
> 
> That's great news.  Thanks a lot for working on this!

Any news on this issue?

I am eager to get oxigraph and its reverse dependencies back on track
for testing inclusion.

Kind regards.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web