Hi, Dylan.
Sorry to bother again, but I'd like to know the status of this upload.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 04:42:20PM -0300, Carlos Henrique Lima Melara wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
> > Le mer. 13 mars 2024 à 16:05, Carlos Henrique Lima Melara
> > <charlesmelara@riseup.net> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > I can try this week to prepare an updated package in a dedicated branch
> > > > in salsa, so you can test it. Then, if everything is okay, we could fill
> > > > the request to the release team.
> > >
> > > Sure, just let me know if you need help with anything and/or when the
> > > packaging is ready for testing.
> >
> > Ready for testing at:
> > https://salsa.debian.org/xorg-team/wayland/weston/-/tree/debian-10.0
> > I just realized the branch name is confusing...
>
> So, I have good and bad news, but I guess they are mostly good.
>
> THe bad news first, when I was checking the upstream commits, I saw some
> changes in libweston.h which raised some flags about ABI incompatibilty
> because they introduced some members in a publicly exposed struct. So I
> set my feet on testing abi changes with abi-dumper +
> abi-compliance-checker (it was my first time, that's why it took so
> long).
>
> The actually bad new is 08979a1 (from 10.0.4) [1] makes some problematic
> changes in libweston.h:
>
> --- a/include/libweston/libweston.h
> +++ b/include/libweston/libweston.h
> @@ -1289,6 +1289,7 @@ struct weston_view {
> struct weston_surface *surface;
> struct wl_list surface_link;
> struct wl_signal destroy_signal;
> + struct wl_signal unmap_signal;
>
> /* struct weston_paint_node::view_link */
> struct wl_list paint_node_list;
> @@ -1441,6 +1442,7 @@ struct weston_pointer_constraint {
> bool hint_is_pending;
>
> struct wl_listener pointer_destroy_listener;
> + struct wl_listener view_unmap_listener;
> struct wl_listener surface_commit_listener;
> struct wl_listener surface_activate_listener;
> };
>
> This introduces an ABI incompatibility in libweston as caught by
> abi-compliance-checker (report attached):
>
> Comparing ABIs ...¬
> Comparing APIs ...¬
> Creating compatibility report ...¬
> Binary compatibility: 77.8%¬
> Source compatibility: 100%¬
> Total binary compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 1¬
> Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 1¬
> Report: compat_reports/libweston-10.so.dump/0_to_1/compat_report.html¬
>
> I think this would get a solid NO from the release team (although I'm
> not sure). Since the whole 10.0.4 release (the 4 commits) are related to
> each other, I think we won't be able to pick it.
>
> That said, I started testing with the 10.0.3 release (because if we
> can't get the latest, let's try to get something at least). And the
> results are good, we have 100% abi and api compatibility for all DSOs,
> even internal ones.
>
> Also, building the 10.0.3 (always with libseat launcher support
> enabled), the build time tests give the same results (with 10.0.5 I was
> getting slightly different results).
>
> I also tested the libseat launcher and normal launcher and they both
> work.
>
> Finally, since the 10.0.5 patch release is only 1 commit, we can grab it
> as a patch in the packaging side, so we would just miss the 10.0.4 patch
> release.
>
> Well, it was a long email, but the main takeway is 10.0.4 introduces an
> ABI incompatibility and would be unsuitable for a proposed-update to
> bookworm. But we can use the 10.0.3 release plus the only commit in
> 10.0.5 with libseat launcher support with 100% abi and api
> compatibility.
Would you be okay of using 10.0.3 instead of 10.0.5?
Also, if you need any help, please let me know.
Maybe a disclaimer I should have sent in the first email, I do work at
Toradex which is an embedded systems company and we are rebuilding
weston with libseat-launcher support for a while. I'm also a Debian
contributor and maintainer (DM) and I suggested to our management to try
to send this change to Debian as a contribution. They were very
supportive about contributing back to Debian, so here we are :-)
Cheers,
Charles
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature