Hi! On Mon, 2024-02-26 at 18:57:32 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.22.4 > Severity: important
> xz-utils 5.6.0 has been uploaded to unstable. A changed behaviour of > `xz' is now that mutlti threaded compress/ decompression is now enabled > by default. This in turn leads to warnings if the requested amount of > memory exceeds the available amount. A snippet from > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/armel/d/dpkg/43341232/log.gz > > | 88s > /tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.dumkcbm0/downtmp/build.4CO/src/src/at/deb-format.at:518: > | 88s # Extract the base members > | 88s xz -c control.tar >control.tar.xz > | 88s xz -c data.tar >data.tar.xz > | 88s > | 89s --- /dev/null 2024-02-26 09:29:33.669234548 +0000 > | 89s +++ > /tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.dumkcbm0/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/src/at/testsuite.dir/at-groups/4/stderr > 2024-02-26 09:30:58.601386838 +0000 > | 89s @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > | 89s +xz: Reduced the number of threads from 16 to 8 to not exceed the > memory usage limit of 1400 MiB > | 89s +xz: Reduced the number of threads from 16 to 8 to not exceed the > memory usage limit of 1400 MiB > | 89s 4. deb-format.at:511: FAILED (deb-format.at:518) > > Allowing output on stderr would be a possible tix. Hmm, that's warning is unfortunate, and a quick check at the xz code didn't reveal a way to only suppress it. :/ For dpkg, I'd like to either not get the warning or being able to tell xz that even if the threads are reduced, that's ok and it should not warn about that (but that would then require depending on a new enough version supporting that, perhaps that could be suppresses instead via an envvar) so that? Ignoring stderr could be a workaround, but I'd need to do something as well for the libdpkg code and the perl code calling xz, which will get very annoying. This is also going to get in the way of migrating both xz and dpkg (which seems like would need to be uploaded today for the time64 transition). Or perhaps that warning could be disabled for now in Debian until things are sorted out with upstream? (Had not seen this test suite failure yet, as I've got xz on hold due to the breaks on pristine-tar, but would probably stumble over it during the release process anyway I guess, so thanks for the heads up!) Thanks, Guillem
