On 18 November 2009 at 17:10, Kenton Varda wrote: | I've created a 2.2.0a release: | | SVN: http://protobuf.googlecode.com/svn/tags/2.2.0a/ | tarball: http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf/web/protobuf-2.2.0a.tar.bz2 | Diff from 2.2.0: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/source/detail?r=246 | | I will make it live on the official site as soon as you confirm that it | fixes the problem.
I'd say go ahead in a day in case you haven't heard. Protobuf doesn't really have an active Debian maintainer right now (but lots of people standing on soap boxen ...) so there may not be anyone testing this. Dirk | On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: | | > Bumping the soname is part of our release process, since C++ ABI | > compatibility is practically impossible to maintain. Unfortunately, if SVN | > is to be believed, it appears that somehow this didn't happen with the 2.2.0 | > release. And here I thought I had finally done a release without screwing | > anything up! | > | > I guess I will do a 2.2.0a which does nothing but fix this. I'd like to | > avoid changing the last digit there because it would create a bunch of new | > ways that I could screw up. | > | > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Robert Edmonds <edmo...@debian.org>wrote: | > | >> [ kenton varda, upstream release engineer for protobuf, added to Cc. ] | >> | >> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | >> > I am not sure what the best way forward is. Given that mumble is the | >> only | >> > user of protobuf, could you just rebuild based on the protobuf? That is | >> > probably quicker than a new upload, NEW queue, required rebuild, ... and | >> > avoids all hazzles regarding soname conflicts if we move to 5 now and | >> Google | >> > later claims 5. | >> | >> since the changes from 2.1.0 to 2.2.0 have demonstrably broken ABI | >> compatibility, the SONAME really should be bumped, regardless of NEW | >> delays, etc. because it is the correct thing to do, rather than breaking | >> unrelated software. ideally it should be coordinated with upstream so | >> that we don't break binary compatibility with other linux distributions | >> (to the extent that this is possible with the C++ ABI, which i am not | >> especially familiar with). | >> | >> kenton, is it possible to make a 2.2.1 release with just a SONAME bump? | >> see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=556563 for the | >> relevant justification: | >> | >> m...@exez:~$ mumble | >> mumble: Symbol `_ZTIN6google8protobuf7MessageE' has different size in | >> shared object, consider re-linking | >> mumble: symbol lookup error: mumble: undefined symbol: | >> _ZN6google8protobuf14MessageFactory29InternalRegisterGeneratedFileEPKcPFvvE | >> | >> i've also noticed that these changes break the protobuf-c package (for | >> which i am the debian maintainer): | >> | >> edmo...@chase{0}:~$ protoc-c | >> protoc-c: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/libprotoc.so.4: undefined | >> symbol: _ZN6google8protobuf8internal10WireFormat21kWireTypeForFieldTypeE | >> | >> i think protobuf-c and mumble are the only two reverse dependencies of | >> protobuf, and they're both broken by the 2.2.0-0.1 upload. | >> | >> the protobuf debian package unfortunately lacks .symbols files for | >> libprotocN and libprotobufN, which would have caught this problem. | >> when .symbols files are in use, the package build should fail if there | >> are any symbol insertions or deletions. | >> | >> i've rebuilt the debian protobuf 2.1.0-1 package, adding symbol files, | >> and then used the result to rebuild the 2.2.0-0.1 package, which reveals | >> that there are quite a few missing symbols in 2.2.0: | >> | >> edmo...@chase{0}:~/debian/protobuf/symbols/protobuf-2.2.0/debian$ grep | >> _ZN6google8protobuf14MessageFactory29InternalRegisterGeneratedFileEPKcPFvvE | >> *.symbols | >> libprotobuf4.symbols:#MISSING: 2.2.0# | >> _zn6google8protobuf14messagefactory29internalregistergeneratedfileepkcpf...@base2.1.0 | >> | >> (the missing symbol that broke mumble.) | >> | >> edmo...@chase{0}:~/debian/protobuf/symbols/protobuf-2.2.0/debian$ grep | >> MISSING *.symbols | wc -l | >> 311 | >> | >> (310 other symbols are missing as well.) | >> | >> i've attached the revelant diff.gz's. | >> | >> btw, 2.2.0 introduced a new 'libprotobuf-lite' library which should be | >> split out of the libprotobuf binary package, since (i gather) the idea | >> is to have a lite version of the library which doesn't require the full | >> heft of libprotobuf. | >> | >> -- | >> Robert Edmonds | >> edmo...@debian.org | >> | >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- | >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) | >> | >> iEYEARECAAYFAksEiVcACgkQdp+/SHMBQJFXTQCgi8udEma1ccxxzHxMw4RPcjT/ | >> 7e8An3+4He41DprUK0BefB/hdWLncwag | >> =3+hv | >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | >> | >> | > -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
