M. Zhou, on 2023-09-17: > Thanks. I'll also help bumping some packages to 5.7.0 in experimental. You're welcome, although thanks for having started first… ;) > On Sun, 2023-09-17 at 11:25 +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote: > > I'm not certain this symbol is supposed to be exposed by these > > libraries anyway, but I guess it wont hurt to be on the safe > > side. Is it okay if I align the rocm_smi64 SOVERSION to 5, and > > also bump the oam SOVERSION to, say, 2, to reflect this > > signature change? > > A very straightforward way to confirm this is to grep the pattern > shared_mutex_init > within the source code of its reverse dependencies. If there is no > package directly calling this API, then it is fine to go ahead > without SOVERSION bump. The only oam reverse dependency I identified potentially was the rccl (obtained via `build-rdeps`, `apt rdepends` didn't show any other reverse dependency than liboam-dev), and it doesn't look to make use of such symbol. Adding slurm-wlm in the pot, as it is the reverse dependency making librocm-smi64-1 a key package, I don't see it using this symbol either. In ROCm SMI lib, shared_mutex_init is only used for the Device constructor. It is probably not part of the API, and probably shouldn't be exposed in the first place in the ABI. I think it should be fine to not bump. I also took some time to recheck what was the status with ROCm SMI lib from ROCm 5.2.3, and the rocm_smi64 SOVERSION delta was already there. Thank you for your answer! Have a nice day, :) -- .''`. Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org> : :' : gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da `. `' sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity `- on air: Spires - Perception
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature