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 > > <charlesmel...@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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
