On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:43:57PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:48:37AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > > The problem is a missmatch between the jmp_buf size in perl vs. modules. > > > Aka the build against glibc 2.19 changed the public ABI of perl. > > > > Yes, jmp_buf had to be increased to support new CPUs. This has been done > > using symbol versioning, but unfortunately it doesn't work when jmp_buf > > is embedded in a struct like in perl. > > > > Upstream consider this as a non-issue and recommend to do the upgrade of > > all the perl packages in a lockstep. > > I see. A bit of googling turns up the related > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271 > > I note that Carlos O'Donell says there > > I expect Ruby is going to fail also since it embeds jmp_buf similarly. > > Has anybody noticed similar issues with Ruby?
So far I haven't, but as symbol versioning is used, until we start mixing versions, the problem won't appear. > > > How do we want to fix this so upgrades won't barf in the users face? > > > > The problem only concerns the jessie to jessie partial upgrades, > > dist-upgrades should be fine. wheezy to jessie upgrades are also fine, > > due to the perl 5.14 to 5.18 transition. If we want to fix that for > > jessie to jessie, one way is to start the perl 5.20 transition. > > So all libc6 reverse dependencies have been binNMU'd on s390x for this > in early June? It looks like some have a confusing changelog entry. I > checked libterm-readline-gnu-perl and libreadonly-xs-perl, which state > "Rebuild against perl 5.18". > > I could make a sourceful perl upload incrementing perlapi-5.18.2 to > for instance perlapi-5.18.2d (and removing perlapi-5.18.1) on s390x > only. This would make ~500 reverse dependencies of perlapi-5.18.* > uninstallable and require a new binNMU round for them. As libperl5.18 > has a tight dependency on perl-base, I don't think we'd need to > do anything on the libperl side. I think this would work fine. From the buildds point of view, the 500 binNMUs should not pose any problem, we have enough build power there. > I think this would be the right way fix this, but I suppose it would > affect ongoing transitions and the like. I'm cc'ing the release team > for advice. > > It'll still take at least a few weeks before we can do a clean perl 5.20 > transition. See #753529. > -- > Niko > -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
