Bug#1063254: lua-luv: identified for time_t transition but no ABI in shlibs
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 01:38:47PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > However, lua-luv's shlibs file declares a dependency on a library package > name that contains no ABI information: > > $ cat DEBIAN/shlibs > liblua5.1-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) > liblua5.2-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) > liblua5.3-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) > liblua5.4-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) > $ > > It is therefore not obvious that we should rename the package to > 'lua-luvt64' as part of this transition. This is how most, if not all, of the lua modules are packaged. I see that lua-compat53 was renamed to lua-compat53t64, but the 53 isn't anything ABI related. The package is named that because it's providing a Lua 5.3-compatible API that can be used in Lua versions prior to 5.3. I'm not sure why Lua modules are packaged this way, but any "obvious" renamings of lua packages on your list are probably misleading. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7 2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB
Bug#1063254: lua-luv: identified for time_t transition but no ABI in shlibs
Source: lua-luv Version: 1.44.2-0-1 Severity: serious User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: time-t Dear maintainers, Analysis of the archive for the 64-bit time_t transition[0][1] identifies lua-luv as an affected package, on the basis that it depends on some library whose ABI is sensitive to time_t, which requires reverse-dependencies to be built with LFS support enabled, and lua-luv's own ABI is sensitive to LFS support. However, lua-luv's shlibs file declares a dependency on a library package name that contains no ABI information: $ cat DEBIAN/shlibs liblua5.1-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) liblua5.2-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) liblua5.3-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) liblua5.4-luv 0 lua-luv (>= 1.44.2-0) $ It is therefore not obvious that we should rename the package to 'lua-luvt64' as part of this transition. Looking at the archive, there are packages built from the separate lua-nvim and neovim source packages that depend on this library. Since there is no self-evident thing to do with the library package name here, we will not be handling this package as part of the mass NMUs. Instead I am filing a serious bug because partial upgrades from bookworm to trixie on 32-bit architectures will result in ABI skew and may result in broken behavior. Thanks, -- 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 [0] https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/01/msg00041.html signature.asc Description: PGP signature
