Hi Cory, On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 04:32:47PM -0600, Cordell Bloor wrote: > Yes, I tried the same a while back. I gave up and decided to update to rccl > from ROCm 6.4.
Thank you. > It was easy enough to move to rccl from ROCm 6.4 (albeit with a reduced set > of supported GPUs), but I got hung up on a missing symbol error. Upstream had > dropped a function without changing the SONAME. In talking to them, they > justified it on the basis that the function never worked anyway. I still > think we need a dummy implementation that returns an error just for > satisfying the linker. That's where I left off. I appreciate your attention to detail. While being attentive to dropped symbols is good as a general rule, I suggest that there may be exceptions. librccl1 does not have any reverse dependencies in Debian (trixie nor sid). When we did the t64 transition, libselinux1 changed a symbol without bumping soname. The rationale was that bumping the package name would have broken dpkg (due to the improper soname transition) and there were no in-archive users of the changed symbol. So consider the effort you spend on this matter compared to the breakage you might cause in pretending the symbol never existed. We should not do this lightly, but the case at hand seems to have good reasons. If in doubt, consider proposing the symbol drop on [email protected] and see how many developers object. I guess none. Helmut
