[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] Bug#510845: mpi-defaults: FTBFS/not available on alpha

[Adeodato Simó]

* Manuel Prinz [Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:47:26 +0100]:

> Am Sonntag, den 15.03.2009, 12:23 +0100 schrieb Adeodato Simó:
> > There is an unfortunate problem with it, though: you can’t use an
> > architecture restriction like [arch1 !arch2] in Build-Depends. That
> > is, you can’t mix ! and non-!; if you stop to think about it, it
> > doesn’t make sense.

> > Just removing “alpha” completely from the Build-Depends line will just
> > do the right thing as far as I can see. Could you make another upload?

> Should have noticed myself, rookie mistake! Sure, will upload again.
> Thanks for spotting this!

Great, thank you.

> > Hm. Well, a warning is one thing, and the applications not working is
> > another. libopenmpi1 is in lenny, with packages depending on it. Partial
> > upgrades ought to work, so if applications stop working, seems like a
> > SONAME bump is in order. If it’s only a warning, it can be fixed with
> > Bin-NMUs, but it should be assessed with care.

> As for Lenny, we're good. Lenny has a 1.2 series version, which is fine
> with all software depending on it as of now. The breakage is only in the
> 1.3 series which is in Sid.

The problem is that 1.2 in Lenny and 1.3 in unstable share the same
SONAME/package name, libopenmpi1, so it is expected that applications in
Lenny will be able to work against any version of libopenmpi1 (provided
that its dependencies are met, of course).

> > I guess that when you say, “Upstream [...] will be ABI compatible
> > starting from 1.3.2”, you mean that they don’t intend to bump the SONAME
> > themselves for the breakage introduced earlier? That’d be a good start
> > if you want to show you care about ABI compatibility...

> I'm in contact with upstrean about that. The current situation is that
> 1.3 has the same SONAME as 1.2, though it should have been bumped. I'll
> hope they'll bump the SONAME in 1.3.1 but that is not settled yet, as I
> understand. I generally think that uploading 1.3.1 would be desireable
> since it includes quite a few fixes and would make most of our current
> patches obsolete, but they have no idea of a release date yet, so I'll
> try to fix 1.3 for now.

Indeed, bumping the SONAME in 1.3.1 would be great if indeed ABI
compatibility has been broken. Thanks for pursuing this.

> > Finally, what’s this business about maintainers not being happy about
> > Bin-NMUs of their packages?

> Not sure if this was rethorical question or if you'd like to have more
> information on that.

No, it was not rethoric. You said the idea of Bin-NMUing was not welcome
by the maintainers of reverse build-dependencies, and I’m curious as to
why. It’s one thing if it was because they didn’t think it was an
appropriate solution; but maintainers should never mind their packages
getting rebuilt if that’s actually the correct solution. I was just
wondering which was the case.

Cheers,

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
        -- Rory and Lorelai