And I just noticed that Lunar SRU
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libcupsfilters/2.0~rc1-0ubuntu1.2
Which is another variant of the problems described before. gcc 12.3 is being SRUed o Lunar and according to the report linked to that update
> The added symbols don't belong to the ABI, however the build fails because dh_makeshlibs is called with -c4, and two more template instantiations show up on riscv64.
So we end up in a situation where issuing a minor gcc update is leading to build failures for our packages...
Cheers,
Sébastien
Hey there,
We had been struggling with a few of those cases recently in desktop and I was going to send an email about the topic then checking the archive I found back that discussion that I had forgotten about.
I would like to ask if there is any chance the MIR team would reconsider their position on the topic (at least until the day we have a somewhat working solution we can use)?
Here is why. Taking a recent example from desktop and describing the experience on one package where we basically had to go through those steps1. We added a symbols to libcupsfilters as part of the MIR promotion
https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libcupsfilters/commit/debian/libcupsfilters2.symbols?h=applied/ubuntu/devel&id=c5821fe0The build failed on armhf because dh_makeshlibs report symbols on armhf which do not existing on amd64
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/647850924/buildlog_ubuntu-lunar-armhf.libcupsfilters_2.0~b2-0ubuntu4_BUILDING.txt.gz
which also included those types of changes
- _Znam@Base 2.0~b2-0ubuntu3 + _Znaj@Base 2.0~b2-0ubuntu4 +#MISSING: 2.0~b2-0ubuntu4# _Znam@Base 2.0~b2-0ubuntu3I personally don't understand why we have those symbols existing on armhf which don't exist on amd64. Nor why _Znam@Base is becoming _Znaj@Base nor how we are supposed to handle such cases
2. I tried to help getting that resolved with that upload
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/647856580/libcupsfilters_2.0~b2-0ubuntu4_2.0~b2-0ubuntu5.diff.gzWhich basically add the symbols showing a new on the armhf as '(optional)' and also listed those that changes as optional in their different variants
3. similar round for riscv64
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/647865001/libcupsfilters_2.0~b2-0ubuntu5_2.0~b2-0ubuntu6.diff.gz
4. doing those tweaks need to be done manually since it's not only applying the diff but also adding optional keyword at places, I got one wrong and it failed to build again
add one more symbol specific to risvc
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/647875197/libcupsfilters_2.0~b2-0ubuntu6_2.0~b2-0ubuntu7.diff.gz5. still failed, I had to add another bunch of symbols from the previous build log
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/647896999/libcupsfilters_2.0~b2-0ubuntu7_2.0~b2-0ubuntu8.diff.gzWhich finally got us a working build.
I understand the motivation for wanting a symbol file but I agree with what Robie, what's the benefit. In that case we spent a few hours to end up with a .symbols which as over 150 '(optional)' entries, that doesn't protect us much better than just not having a .symbols or using -c0 but still has a high cost.
And from experience it is likely that following the next toolchain update the .symbols will not match anymore and that those of us who will end up having to fix the package build will not understand why and just end up applying the diff proposed by dpkg-gensymbols.Checking on the Debian side, https://wiki.debian.org/UsingSymbolsFiles has a 'C++ libraries' section which start by this statement written in bold style
> For C++ libraries it is often better not to ship symbols files.
Which means we will often fail at upstreaming such improvements to Debian and will have to increase our delta. And I don't blame them, I'm not even sure how to deal with the 'the symbols change between architectures' out of throwing builds to a ppa to get results and iterate and Debian doesn't have the ppa option...
Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher
Le 22/05/2018 à 18:25, Robie Basak a écrit :
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:29:13PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:I completely disagree. Replacing a somehow suboptimal check with no check is not an option.On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:IMHO symbols files should be mandatory for any new libraries introduced in the archive. And we should assert symbols files for everything in main, and fix all the things. It's 2018, and we really ought to have sensible and strict symbols files.Both of these statements on their own state that we must do this work but don't explain why this is of benefit to Ubuntu. I feel that you need to justify your position rather than just stating it. Can you provide examples of where maintaining this delta has actually helped make Ubuntu better, in the specific case that C++ symbols are being maintained by Ubuntu in a delta that Debian and upstream have declined to adopt or postponed adopting? Without examples, we're not really in a position to assess the trade-off of extra work vs. benefit to Ubuntu. I don't think we should be maintaining delta unless the benefit can be articulated and justified. Separately, I question whether it's in the interest of our project to spend time on maintaining a quality improvement indefinitely if Debian and/or upstream decline to take it, and if that particular improvement is not a high level goal of our project. Thanks, Robie
