[Pkg-ofed-devel] Bug#769742: Bug#769742: libopensm5: move libosmcomp3, libosmvendor4 to separate packages

Ana Guerrero Lopez ana at debian.org
Tue Nov 18 12:50:24 UTC 2014

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 02:58:21AM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Package: libopensm5
> Version: 3.3.18-1
> Severity: serious
> User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org
> Usertags: piuparts
> libopensm5 ships three libraries with independent soversions:
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libopensm.so.5.2.1
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libosmcomp.so.3.0.8
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libosmvendor.so.4.0.0
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libopensm.so.5
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libosmcomp.so.3
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libosmvendor.so.4
> This does not work, because soversion changes in the two other
> libraries cannot be represented in the package versioning.
> Right now we have in sid the package ibutils (and maybe more)
> with an unusable binary:
> # ldd /usr/bin/ibis 
>         linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007f30818f6000)
>         libopensm.so.5 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libopensm.so.5 (0x00007f30816dc000)
>         libosmvendor.so.3 => not found
>         libosmcomp.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libosmcomp.so.3 (0x00007f30814cd000)
> ....
> because libopensm5 ships libosmvendor.so.4 nowadays.
> This is an unnoticed transition.
> For jessie, this bug can be fixed with binNMUs for ibutils (and maybe
> other affected packages). If the release team accepts this solution,
> they may tag this bug jessie-ignore.
> Please do not upload split packages to sid without getting a transition
> slot and a GO from the release team.
> But you may (and should) upload them to experimental.
> This bug was discovered by adequate in a piuparts run.

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for your bug report.
I was a bit annoyed that you went and asked for the binNMU without waiting
for me to reply or failing to indicate your plans in this bug report. I also
agree with Julien it's better to split the package and fix this properly.

I'll upload the package to experimental (well, NEW) as soon as I can, will
check the affected packages - not a lot of them and they are all maintained
by the ofed "team" - and I'll find with the RT the best solution.


More information about the Pkg-ofed-devel mailing list