• Bug#1062567: libpg-query: NMU diff for 64-bit time_t transition

    From Christoph Berg@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 5 15:00:02 2024
    Control: tags -1 = moreinfo

    Re: Steve Langasek
    If you have any concerns about this patch, please reach out ASAP. Although this package will be uploaded to experimental immediately, there will be a period of several days before we begin uploads to unstable; so if information becomes available that your package should not be included in the transition, there is time for us to amend the planned uploads.

    Hi,

    I just found out that libpg-query is included because it was thought
    to be "uninstallable":

    https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/logs/libpg-query-dev/apt.log

    [2024-01-20T03:02:49+00:00] apt-get install libpg-query-dev libprotobuf-c-dev postgresql-server-dev-15 abi-compliance-checker
    E: Unable to locate package postgresql-server-dev-15

    I think that's bogus, the package has not been depending on PG15 for
    some time.

    Please exclude it from the NMUs.

    Also, why did I not get a bug for that? I understand that you can't
    look at 1500 packages individually, but checking the 40-something on the https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/summary/results_uninstallable.txt
    list would surely have been possible?

    Christoph

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steve Langasek@21:1/5 to Christoph Berg on Mon Feb 5 22:00:01 2024
    Hi Christoph,

    On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:46:35PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
    Control: tags -1 = moreinfo

    Re: Steve Langasek
    If you have any concerns about this patch, please reach out ASAP. Although this package will be uploaded to experimental immediately, there will be a period of several days before we begin uploads to unstable; so if information
    becomes available that your package should not be included in the transition,
    there is time for us to amend the planned uploads.

    Hi,

    I just found out that libpg-query is included because it was thought
    to be "uninstallable":

    https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/logs/libpg-query-dev/apt.log

    [2024-01-20T03:02:49+00:00] apt-get install libpg-query-dev libprotobuf-c-dev postgresql-server-dev-15 abi-compliance-checker
    E: Unable to locate package postgresql-server-dev-15

    I think that's bogus, the package has not been depending on PG15 for
    some time.

    The sequence here is:

    2023-03 attempting to analyze libpg-query-dev fails because of undeclared header dependencies. https://people.canonical.com/~vorlon/armhf-time_t/logs/libpg-query-dev/base/log.txt

    2023-07 post to debian-devel proposing that -dev packages we can't analyze
    in a timely fashion be included in the transition to be safe, and that maintainers can help analyze if they want their package excluded. Package
    list attached which includes libpg-query-dev. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/07/msg00232.html

    2023-09 quirk added to the a-c-c wrapper script that tries to pull in
    missing dependencies of libpq-query-dev identified via static analysis of packages failing to be analyzed to date, which at the time included postgresql-server-dev-15.

    2023-11 postgresql-15 removed from sid.

    2023-12 first full analysis of Debian sid, at which point the quirk for libpg-query-dev is out of date.

    So we have never had a successful analysis of libpg-query-dev, and from our side do not know that its ABI is not affected by time_t.

    Please exclude it from the NMUs.

    Also, why did I not get a bug for that? I understand that you can't
    look at 1500 packages individually, but checking the 40-something on the https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2024-02-01T09:53:00/summary/results_uninstallable.txt
    list would surely have been possible?

    We didn't file bugs about undeclared header deps, because maintainers were
    not very receptive to the first few reports we filed (apparently expecting
    -dev packages to only ship headers that can be compiled on Debian is too
    much) so we decided we were better off just adding quirks manually to not
    block on Debian maintainers.

    We didn't file bugs about uninstallable packages because from an archive perspective, trying to avoid a possibly-unnecessary transition for a library with a hundred reverse-dependencies is a higher priority than trying to
    avoid a possibly-unnecessary transition for a library with two reverse-dependencies[0], regardless of the particular reason we weren't able
    to analyze the package.

    If you as maintainer want to close this bug report (indicating that no transition is required) or un-tag it 'pending' (indicating that a transition may be required but the patch is not ready to upload), and accept any
    fallout if it turns out this is incorrect, that will mark it so that we will not include it in NMUs to unstable.

    *I* will not be making either of those state changes to the bug, because I currently don't have proof that the library's ABI is not affected by time_t.

    Thanks,
    --
    Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

    [0] https://people.canonical.com/~vorlon/armhf-time_t/sorted-revdep-count

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErEg/aN5yj0PyIC/KVo0w8yGyEz0FAmXBSXsACgkQVo0w8yGy Ez1NVw//bNM2bJmRfLIDe9zBlfAUeGBbMRosAzT78qmRL3jSCs3XraSn0Hq75B8n dIZaFP/8RcbkU05k4gXrZmLHdO1VYdBAyVlUEg7ip1Eul6lA8+osSrhcrhgTCa35 mqWt0j4xEn2bD22Re7GEmVlUduz1ArtbF2VFK6XySoHZiOxPU98c+rwPMklspFYK xbx437oUmUz8ZHGmK6ZiCYDw9oXnxkeSlwttXn9y9Q3vkODhqjkNHJMg0e5AIqfT 3fQlm6Ktzcd5+TiH9EQ8qm7cLdPTz/a76t8g/RdyCE2Af1r6EJ8vTtx1NFuzdMo6 E0J+jAzzIXT6dQCxUr+9KqMV4JN+FVVlUYXueATxtnFXGbg2+D/Y/w6sv933t9Q1 +q1mA1QH8cZtnHdFAUnZUjVe3P6A3ToLYs8IBIk1eHiEu4Kdasn4pQAyD/k6Cv9A TunfwcGxXMmHQcw/vLQOeOnfNM0USmJjGIRvtJCRoDll8NjTPMkbigo4dbZc/Gun
    9NgiOGY8T
  • From Christoph Berg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 6 10:40:01 2024
    Re: Steve Langasek
    If you as maintainer want to close this bug report (indicating that no transition is required) or un-tag it 'pending' (indicating that a transition may be required but the patch is not ready to upload), and accept any
    fallout if it turns out this is incorrect, that will mark it so that we will not include it in NMUs to unstable.

    Is there any writeup on what verification steps I have to do to do
    that assessment? All I could find so far are very long lists of
    packages without any explanation, and a wiki page that outlines a
    plan, but doesn't have any instructions for maintainers.

    Christoph

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)