Re: Status of ‘core-updates’

[Efraim Flashner]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:47:49PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Steve George <steve@futurile.net> skribis:
> >
> >> On 10 Apr, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>> To be clear (but I guess it’s crystal clear to anyone who’s been around
> >>> long enough :-)), what we need most is someone to keep track of changes,
> >>> coordinate efforts, decide what goes in the branch and what’s postponed
> >>> or moved to a separate branch, and send periodic (weekly) status updates
> >>> over the course of a couple of months.  This can (and probably should)
> >>> be done without doing any actual hacking on the branch.
> >> (...)
> >>
> >> This sounds like something I can do:
> >>
> >> - track changes (in branch)
> >> - co-ordinate blocking issues (in bug system)
> >> - co-ordinate with people doing the actual work :-P
> >> - send (periodic) weekly emails
> >> - encourage shipping by minimising scope creep ;-)
> >
> > Awesome, thanks for volunteering!
> >
> >> Sounds like there's already agreement to revert the 'pkgconf' change
> >> and push a new branch without them which becomes
> >> 'core-updates'. Josselin on IRC I had the impression you were
> >> working on that?
> >
> > I’m not sure what the situation is (I see Maxim just pushed changes on
> > top of current ‘core-updates’, so maybe it’s OK?).
> 
> Since branches were merged in, I believe the problem we are facing at
> the moment is librsvg failing its test suite with a segfault (!).  Could
> be the glibc upgrade, or rust itself, I'm not sure.  I was trying to
> upgrade librsvg, which needs an update anyway, but it pulls many rust
> crates updates.  I'll get there eventually, if nobody beats me to it.

I personally think getting librsvg updated will be easier on the
rust-team branch than on the core-updates branch, since there have been
many commits to the rust-team branch that haven't yet been merged into
master.

Assuming that now that the cairo upgrade to 1.18 was what was holding
back the librsvg upgrade, I can get librsvg up to a newer version and
then submit it for a merge.  Overall the branch should be in fairly good
shape.

> > Josselin, Maxim: could you explain what problems there are around
> > pkgconf and what you would recommend?
> 
> Nothing in particular to point at the moment, but remaining problems
> would manifest in the form of missing inputs, due to transitive libtool
> dependencies causing overlinking and the new pkgconf being smart enough
> to optimize away some previously captured link directives that would be
> baked in the RUNPATH and sastify libtool overlinking needs.
> 
> The solution is to hunt the libtool .la files from the transitive
> dependencies causing the problem and removing them. See commit
> b6540bd285cbe5920ad379ddfc6256359ee7204c for an example.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Maxim
> 

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature