>I meant the *Ubuntu* development release, not an upstream development >release.
Ugh. If applied/ubuntu/devel is the right branch to check it then it is not fixed in the Ubuntu development release too. See: https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxc/tree/meson.build?h=applied/ubuntu/devel#n33 At the same time in Debian: https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxc/tree/meson.build?h=applied/debian/bookworm#n36 >I understand that, but that's not my question. You explained how it is >intended to be used. But how is it actually used? It is used precisely as it intended to be used (at least in the go-lxc) :) >Sure, but it is insufficient to consider just the reverse dependency >involved in the use case you're trying to fix. We must consider all >other reasonable use cases as well. Ok, let's take https://github.com/search?q=LXC_DEVEL&type=code As I can see from the search results there is no any other use cases for LXC_DEVEL anywhere except go-lxc. >For SRU purposes, it is not sufficient to rely on your "properly written >software" condition. We must also avoid regressing "improperly written >software" as much as we can in any change we make to a stable release. Sure, I agree. But I'm 99.999% sure that this change is safe :) >But this also suggests that there isn't actually a bug that impacts a >binary that is shipped by Ubuntu in Jammy It does not impacts a *binary*. But it impacts /usr/include/lxc/version.h file contents which is a part of a liblxc-dev package. >1) What use cases might be regressed as a result of this change, even >for software that is not "properly written". This is a hard requirement >for any stable release update in Ubuntu. Have done using https://github.com/search?q=LXC_DEVEL&type=code >2) In light of the above, what is an appropriate minimal way to fix the >issue. I believe that my fix is the minimal appropriate way to fix the issue. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to lxc in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2039873 Title: liblxc-dev was built with LXC_DEVEL=1 in Ubuntu Jammy/Kinetic Status in lxc package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: [ Impact ] LXC 5.0.0 was built with LXC_DEVEL=1 set for Jammy. But for release build we should have LXC_DEVEL=0. LXC_DEVEL is a variable that appears in the /usr/include/lxc/version.h and then can be (and actually it is) used by other projects to detect if liblxc-dev is a development build or stable. Having LXC_DEVEL=1 makes problems for the users who want to build projects those are depend on liblxc from source (for example, LXD, go-lxc: https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12420). Q: Why it was not a problem for so long? A: Because LXC API was stable for a long time, but recently we have extended liblxc API (https://github.com/lxc/lxc/pull/4260) and dependant package go-lxc was updated too (https://github.com/lxc/go-lxc/pull/166). This change was developed properly to be backward compatible with the old versions of liblxc. But, there is a problem. If LXC_DEVEL=1 then the macro check VERSION_AT_LEAST (https://github.com/lxc/go-lxc/blob/ccae595aa49e779f7ecc9250329967aa546acd31/lxc-binding.h#L7) is disabled. That's why we should *not* have LXC_DEVEL=1 for *any* release build of LXC. [ Test Plan ] Install liblxc-dev package and check /usr/include/lxc/version.h file LXC_DEVEL should be 0 [ Where problems could occur ] Theoretically, build of a software which depends on liblxc-dev may start to fail if it assumes that LXC_DEVEL is 1. [ Other Info ] - To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxc/+bug/2039873/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
