On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 02:23:59PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes:

>     Steve> - In multi-library packages, there is no reliable way to map
>     Steve> from a set of headers in a dev package to specific shared
>     Steve> libraries in a runtime library package that's not
>     Steve> additionally computationally prohibitive; we therefore
>     Steve> conservatively assume that if any headers from a source
>     Steve> package show time_t ABI changes, all the runtime library
>     Steve> packages from the source package are affected by the
>     Steve> transition.  This seems sensible in general, but er, in the
>     Steve> pathological case we have Source: zlib that now ships both
>     Steve> zlib1g-dev and libminizip-dev, zlib1g-dev is confirmed to not
>     Steve> be ABI breaking, libminizip-dev has failed to analyze, and we
>     Steve> don't want to force a transition for zlib1g because of
>     Steve> libminizip (!).  Current plan is to simply special case
>     Steve> zlib1g, but there could be other problem packages we haven't
>     Steve> identified.

> I think krb5 may be in this category.
> In particular, it looks like time_t is only exposed in the kdb.h API,
> which appears to have no reverse depends outside of krb5.
> I actually think that the freeIPA server may have a plugin that depends
> on kdb.h, and Samba4 can be built in such a way that it depends on
> kdb.h, but it looks like neither of those applies to the Debian archive.

https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2023-12-18/compat_reports/libkrb5-dev/lfs_to_time_t/compat_report.html
indicates that the CLIENT struct is affected because the cl_call function
pointer takes a 'struct timeval' as an argument.  So that's not internal to
kdb, it looks like an actual ABI change?

> At one level, krb5-multidev only has an rdep of 5, but I suspect the
> rdep count for libkrb5-dev is somewhat larger:-)
> I don't know how many packages would be removed from the transition if
> we decide most of the krb5 libraries do not need to transition.

If we determined only libkdb5-10 and libgssrpc4 were affected, that does
significantly reduce the number of packages needing to be rebuilt because of
krb5, though maybe most of those packages also depend on other libraries
that are transitioning.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com                                     vor...@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to