bug#63530: Missing library in package procps
Hello, Gabriel Wicki writes: > A little more hacking leads me to the conclusion that (probably with > version 4 but it's not exactly clear from the changelog) procps has made > some significant changes to it's API. So, unless igt-gpu-tools (and > probably others) are fixed upstream they remain broken. Fixes through > simple regex-magic in our build-phases might be possible, but I am not > confident enough in the matter to guarantee that the package would not > just build but be broken in a more specific manner. > > Is there an easy way to check which dependents of procps are actually > broken currently? Or is it really just igt-gpu-tools? > > There's two ways to go (I'd be happy for some input and volunteer to do > the actual leg-work): > 1. Add an additional procps-3 package with the older API to fix the > broken packages. > 2. Leave it as-is and wait for an upstream change of the currently > broken packages. I have found the upstream issue: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/-/issues/116 We can wait it out until the release, which will be out Soon (tm), or we make use of the patch that debian applies to igt-gpu-tools so it can work with the new libproc2 API: https://salsa.debian.org/xorg-team/app/intel-gpu-tools/-/blob/067ddd789fd80c12972fb92db8f93fadbdc4530e/debian/patches/libproc2_library AFAICS, this would not lead to a world-rebuild. Thoughts? - Jelle
bug#63530: Missing library in package procps
A little more hacking leads me to the conclusion that (probably with version 4 but it's not exactly clear from the changelog) procps has made some significant changes to it's API. So, unless igt-gpu-tools (and probably others) are fixed upstream they remain broken. Fixes through simple regex-magic in our build-phases might be possible, but I am not confident enough in the matter to guarantee that the package would not just build but be broken in a more specific manner. Is there an easy way to check which dependents of procps are actually broken currently? Or is it really just igt-gpu-tools? There's two ways to go (I'd be happy for some input and volunteer to do the actual leg-work): 1. Add an additional procps-3 package with the older API to fix the broken packages. 2. Leave it as-is and wait for an upstream change of the currently broken packages.
bug#63530: Missing library in package procps
Gabriel Wicki writes: > Hi > > Trying to upgrade a somewhat outdated system (from March 23) I noticed > igt-gpu-tools failed to build. Investigating a bit the build fails due > to some "proc/readproc.h" include missing. I think i managed to fix the > failure in procps's Makefile, but testing the patched build results in a > rather huge rebuild. `guix refresh -l procps` results in 5328 > packages. Are there any other approaches one could take to a) fix the > broken package without b) triggering a world-rebuild? > > I'm not sure if this is an upstream bug and whether other packages are > affected, neither do I know whether the other header files that aren't > being copied to the install dir should be. > > > Thanks for your input in advance! I'll update this issue with a patch > as soon as I manage to verify that my attempt actually works. > > gabber You could test it as a graft, then dependents won't get rebuilt. If the public ABI exported by the package doesn't change, it Should Be Fine TM.
bug#63530: Missing library in package procps
Hi Trying to upgrade a somewhat outdated system (from March 23) I noticed igt-gpu-tools failed to build. Investigating a bit the build fails due to some "proc/readproc.h" include missing. I think i managed to fix the failure in procps's Makefile, but testing the patched build results in a rather huge rebuild. `guix refresh -l procps` results in 5328 packages. Are there any other approaches one could take to a) fix the broken package without b) triggering a world-rebuild? I'm not sure if this is an upstream bug and whether other packages are affected, neither do I know whether the other header files that aren't being copied to the install dir should be. Thanks for your input in advance! I'll update this issue with a patch as soon as I manage to verify that my attempt actually works. gabber
