I can try importing latest upstream and run reverse builds for all dependants.
One challenge I have at the moment is that upstream is not responding on GitHub PRs and ignoring fixes and also not publishing any policy of which RocksDB version is likely good for long-term maintenance. Thus there is no clear basis for selecting which of the multiple new RocksDB versions is most suitable for Debian. On Sun., Jan. 12, 2025, 04:39 Jonas Smedegaard, <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: > Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2025-01-12 13:33:43) > > * main change between upstream rocksdb 9.8.4 and 9.10.0 seemingly is > > changes to how they do auto-triggered compaction of databases, > > including what they call an "[i]mortant follow-up" to a memory leak: > > https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/13106 > > > > It seems likely to me that the bug is in rocksdb rather than oxigraph, > > so I am reassigning. > > > > Perhaps this issue is also fixed in v9.8.1, not in Debian but mentioned > > since November in related upstream bugreport: > > https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/13066 > > Please ignore last remark above: What was fixed since November was the > main patch for the memory leak, whereas the "[i]mortant follow-up" is > only included with 9.10.0. > > I have tried cherry-pick and apply that one git commit to 9.8.4-1, but > that still fails for me, so something else is involved as well. > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
