Bug#703332: If they are API compatible you MUST generate and install a GAC policy file!

2013-04-11 Thread Jonathan Wiltshire
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:04:24PM +, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
 Hi,
 
 As mummy/1.0.3-2 is unsuitable for Wheezy please could you prepare a backport
 of your patch for an upload to testing-proposed-updates, and submit a debdiff
 to the release team for approval.

Ping? It's getting urgent now.

Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire  j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from
8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits
layered on top of bonghits


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Bug#703332: If they are API compatible you MUST generate and install a GAC policy file!

2013-04-02 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org wrote:
 As mummy/1.0.3-2 is unsuitable for Wheezy please could you prepare a backport
 of your patch for an upload to testing-proposed-updates, and submit a debdiff
 to the release team for approval.

1.0.2-5 will transition to Wheezy... 1.0.3-2 should be blocked by
freeze, correct ?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#703332: If they are API compatible you MUST generate and install a GAC policy file!

2013-04-02 Thread Adam D. Barratt

On 02.04.2013 07:53, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org 
wrote:
As mummy/1.0.3-2 is unsuitable for Wheezy please could you prepare a 
backport
of your patch for an upload to testing-proposed-updates, and submit 
a debdiff

to the release team for approval.


1.0.2-5 will transition to Wheezy...


It *did*, nearly a year ago.


1.0.3-2 should be blocked by freeze, correct ?


Yes. 1.0.3-1 also contains changes which are not suitable for 
unblocking, hence Jonathan's request for a backport of the RC fix via 
t-p-u.


Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#703332: If they are API compatible you MUST generate and install a GAC policy file!

2013-04-01 Thread Jonathan Wiltshire
Hi,

As mummy/1.0.3-2 is unsuitable for Wheezy please could you prepare a backport
of your patch for an upload to testing-proposed-updates, and submit a debdiff
to the release team for approval.

Thanks,

--
Jonathan Wiltshire


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#703332: If they are API compatible you MUST generate and install a GAC policy file!

2013-03-18 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Package: libactiviz.net-cil


-- Forwarded message --
From: Jo Shields direct...@apebox.org
Date: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Invalid dependencies (Re: Unhandled Exception:
Mono.CSharp.InternalErrorException)
To: Mathieu Malaterre ma...@debian.org
Cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org


On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 16:08 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Jo Shields direct...@apebox.org wrote:
  On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 15:34 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
  Using monodis, I finally found out the issue. libactiviz.net-cil
  1:1.0~git20111214-1 on amd64 is build against an older mummy release.
  Therefore we have:
 
  $ monodis --assemblyref /usr/lib/cli/ActiViz.NET/Kitware.VTK.dll
  [...]
  2: Version=1.0.2.599
Name=Kitware.mummy.Runtime
Flags=0x
Public Key:
 
 
  While, if one recompiles+install, we get:
 
  $ monodis --assemblyref /usr/lib/cli/ActiViz.NET/Kitware.VTK.dll
  [...]
  2: Version=1.0.3.599
Name=Kitware.mummy.Runtime
Flags=0x
Public Key:
 
 
  So the short solution is to request a binNMU of libactiviz.net-cil.
  But the long solution would be to have proper dependencies checking.
 
  Could some C# gurus let me know if there is anything missing in my
  activiz.net and/or mummy package to generate proper dependencies (and
  therefore have a btter long term solution) ?
 
  Thanks *very* much !
 
  The first question is are the two versions ABI-compatible? - if the
  ABI hasn't actually been broken (i.e. there are no removed methods or
  properties) then you can include a GAC policy file which maps all
  applications looking for the old ABI to the new ABI. For example, apps
  with a moduleref for Mono.Addins 0.2.0.0, 0.3.0.0, 0.4.0.0, or 0.5.0.0
  will still work with our 0.6.0.0 packages, thanks to policy files. The
  command mono-api-check can be used to compare two assemblies to see if
  their ABIs are compatible or not; the man page for dh_cligacpolicy shows
  how to write a cligacpolicy file to do policy mapping, if appropriate.
 

 $ mono-api-check ./sid/usr/lib/cli/ActiViz.NET/Kitware.VTK.dll
 ./loc/usr/lib/cli/ActiViz.NET/Kitware.VTK.dll
 Error: mono-api-info on ./sid/usr/lib/cli/ActiViz.NET/Kitware.VTK.dll failed!
 $ man mono-api-check
 No manual entry for mono-api-check
 See 'man 7 undocumented' for help when manual pages are not available.

 Same goes with .deb package:


 $ mono-api-check ./sid/libactiviz.net-cil_1.0~git20111214-1_amd64.deb
 ./libactiviz.net-cil_1.0~git20111214-1_amd64.deb
 Library:  /usr/lib/cli/ActiViz.NET/Kitware.VTK.dll
 Error: mono-api-info on
 /tmp/mono-api-check-1192-7700/usr/lib/cli/ActiViz.NET/Kitware.VTK.dll
 failed!

 Any extra information on how to use this tool also very appreciated !

$ mono-api-check
a/usr/lib/cli/Kitware.mummy.Runtime-1.0/Kitware.mummy.Runtime.dll
b/usr/lib/cli/Kitware.mummy.Runtime-1.0/Kitware.mummy.Runtime.dll

CLI API Check
Assembly Name:  Kitware.mummy.Runtime
Missing Interfaces: 0
Additional Interfaces:  0

The assembly versions do NOT MATCH!
If they are API compatible you MUST generate and install a GAC policy
file!




Seems compatible to me!

This is a pretty basic upstream error - the assembly version should be
treated as an ABI version declaration, not something to bump ad hoc, for
precisely the reasons you've run into. There is no difference between
the version 1.0.2 build revision 599 ABI, and version 1.0.3 build
revision 599 ABI which would require bumping this ABI version. Using GAC
policy is a simple way to work around this kind of stupidity (MySQL's
bindings do the same)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org