>What are your thoughts on (a) and (b)? >being marked as superficial won't block a migration if it fails (IIRC: at least, it's definitely not a hard error). And we do want this to "stop the line" if it fails, right?
Ideally, it's better to block upload of package if this fails, yes. Because it's really bad to have LXC_DEVEL = 1 in the production release. >b) it's checking something from the source code, which could be later changed via d/rules during build. What I mean is that this is not the place users will get the value of LXC_DEVEL from. Yeah, ideally, yes. But I have just gone with the simplest possible solution to check this. >A DEP8 test is awesome, thanks for that. But it might too close to a release for such a check. Imagine an SRU gets sponsored, then reviewed, then accepted, and then we get the DEP8 result that says "oops, LXC_DEVEL=1 is leaking again". How about also checking it during package build? I won't block the upload on this, though, but it would be good to have I think, even if later. Ah, to be honest I was sure that this check will be performed before uploading this change to the Ubuntu package repositories. Can you give me a hint or send me to the manual about how to make this check during the package build? >I won't block the upload on this, though, but it would be good to have I think, even if later. Thanks for that. Yeah, I think that if everything seems generally fine to you to upload this as it is I can do this further improvements and modification in a later patches. As we anyways want (ideally) to rebase this on top of debian/sid. -- 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 22.04 and later releases Status in lxc package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Status in lxc source package in Jammy: Confirmed Status in lxc source package in Mantic: Confirmed Status in lxc source package in Noble: 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
