Public bug reported:

I've seen that pandoc fails, example:

root@j:~# pandoc
pandoc: error while loading shared libraries: libcmark-gfm.so.0.29.0.gfm.0: 
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

That made me wonder about this dependency and I found others like gitit:

root@j:~# gitit
gitit: error while loading shared libraries: libcmark-gfm.so.0.29.0.gfm.0: 
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory


Turns out that cmark-gfm had a transition but all deps had bad dependencies
From:
 cmark-gfm | 0.29.0.gfm.0-6 | impish/universe  | source, amd64, arm64, armhf, 
ppc64el, riscv64, s390x
To:
 cmark-gfm | 0.29.0.gfm.2-1 | jammy/universe   | source, amd64, arm64, armhf, 
ppc64el, riscv64, s390x


The generated depends lines are
Depends: ..., libcmark-gfm0 (>= 0.29.0.gfm.0), ...


And >= 0.29.0.gfm.0 the new >= 0.29.0.gfm.2 is.

But IMHO this should have been a real transition libcmark-gfm0 ->
libcmark-gfm2 at least as far as I've checked.


----


You might think "lets just rebuild them and be done with it", but to make 
things worse some can't even be rebuilt.
- gitit - works picking up libcmark-gfm0 (>= 0.29.0.gfm.2)
- pandoc - FTBFS due to pandoc failing (cyclical)

Maybe there are more in this list:
$ reverse-depends --release jammy libcmark-gfm0
Reverse-Depends
* cmark-gfm
* gitit
* libcmark-gfm-dev
* libcmark-gfm-extensions0
* libghc-cmark-gfm-dev
* libghc-gitit-dev
* libghc-hakyll-dev
* libghc-pandoc-citeproc-dev
* libghc-pandoc-dev
* pandoc
* pandoc-citeproc
* patat [amd64 arm64 armhf ppc64el]


---

Right now this is "only" broken in proposed:
root@j:~# apt-cache policy libcmark-gfm0
libcmark-gfm0:
  Installed: 0.29.0.gfm.2-1
  Candidate: 0.29.0.gfm.2-1
  Version table:
 *** 0.29.0.gfm.2-1 500
        500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-proposed/universe amd64 
Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     0.29.0.gfm.0-6 500
        500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/universe amd64 Packag


But it breaks any build in proposed using any of the above tools, and pandoc is 
used here and there for markup conversion - those are all FTBFS now.


---

That seems to be just aas bad in Debian
Here in a sid container:

root@d10-sid:~# apt install pandoc
...
Get:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 libcmark-gfm0 amd64 
0.29.0.gfm.2-1 [118 kB]
Get:2 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 libcmark-gfm-extensions0 
amd64 0.29.0.gfm.2-1 [46.8 kB]
Get:3 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 pandoc-data all 2.9.2.1-2 
[377 kB]
Get:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 pandoc amd64 2.9.2.1-2 [18.5 
MB]

root@d10-sid:~# pandoc 
pandoc: error while loading shared libraries: libcmark-gfm.so.0.29.0.gfm.0: 
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory


---

TBH: I see no bugs in Debian nor in Ubuntu about it yet, so I might miss
a major puzzle piece here.

---

Suggestion:
1. let us remove the bad cmark-gfm from jammy-proposed (fixing all current 
issues)
2. IMHO this is bad for Debian too, can we stop it there (2 days to move to 
testing according to https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/cmark-gfm)
3. someone report or work with Debian on a fix to get this right

I'll add bug tasks for those packages affected to show up in mismatches,
but the failure&fix most likely is in cmark-gfm

** Affects: cmark-gfm (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

** Affects: gitit (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

** Affects: pandoc (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New


** Tags: update-excuse

** Also affects: gitit (Ubuntu)
   Importance: Undecided
       Status: New

** Also affects: pandoc (Ubuntu)
   Importance: Undecided
       Status: New

** Tags added: update-excuse

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1958235

Title:
  auto-synced transition to 0.29.0.gfm.2-1 left various packages behind
  broken

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cmark-gfm/+bug/1958235/+subscriptions


-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to