Re: Result of first real test with split of runtime glibc 32 bits in a separate package

On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:

> 
>  With a glibc package without elf 32 binaries, and gcc libraries
> also split, what holds removal of the 32 bit libc6 package in a
> minimal chroot is:
> 
> # LC_ALL=C rpm -e libc6

(aside)
Well that's one way to identify dependencies. One
of these days you are going to be surprised when
	rpm -e libc6
actually succeeds however: add --test (which doesn't test anything whatsoever)
or use
	rpm -Va --nofiles

There are some subtle differences. There are 3 "contexts" attached
to dependencies:
	installing	needed while installing
	unmarked	needed to use
	removing	needed while removing
and "rpm -e" will show the union of the dependencies in
	removing+unmarked
while "rpm -Va --nofiles" will show the union of the dependencies in
	installing+unmarked

But you are actually interested in the members of the unmarked set
implied by "… holds removal …".

> error: Failed dependencies:
>        libc.so.6 is needed by (installed) lib64ffi4-4.6.2-4.x86_64
>        libc.so.6 is needed by (installed) zlib1-1.2.5-10.x86_64
>        libc.so.6 is needed by (installed) grub-0.97-35.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) is needed by (installed) lib64ffi4-4.6.2-4.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) is needed by (installed) zlib1-1.2.5-10.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) is needed by (installed) grub-0.97-35.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) is needed by (installed) lib64ffi4-4.6.2-4.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) is needed by (installed) zlib1-1.2.5-10.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) is needed by (installed) grub-0.97-35.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) is needed by (installed) lib64ffi4-4.6.2-4.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) is needed by (installed) zlib1-1.2.5-10.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) is needed by (installed) grub-0.97-35.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) is needed by (installed) grub-0.97-35.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) is needed by (installed) zlib1-1.2.5-10.x86_64
>        libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) is needed by (installed) zlib1-1.2.5-10.x86_64
> 

(aside)

All of the versioned symbol dependencies can likely be ripped out everywhere
and replaced (for "legacy compatibility" during the transition) with some
Provides: added externally like in /etc/rpm/sysinfo/Providename. I can
go into any depth of detail, but the version of glib implies that all
previous version symbols exist always (for glibc, not in general, where
promoting symbol's version as if it were a so name attribute has a different
and subtle flaw).

Yes no one is prepared to rip out versioned soname dependencies everywhere
people phear change more than they love "dependency hell" … *shrug*.

Specific question:
	Is it feasible to make internal DT_SONAME mandatory everywhere
	on 2012, enforced by rpmlint checks? I personally would also force
	DT_SONAME into "modules" so that the rule is simple (and devising
	a heuristic based on paths to "modules" is not: adding DT_SONAME
	to "modules" hurts nothing that I know of even if not used).

>  These should need a rebuild to link to libffi5:
> 
> # LC_ALL=C rpm -e lib64ffi4
> error: Failed dependencies:
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> lib64ORBit2_0-2.14.19-4.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> lib64gnome-vfs2_0-2.24.4-4.x86_64
> 

(aside)
The proposed patch for x32abi parallels the "…()(64bit)"
markup. Instead of adding Yet More Compexity with another
"…(x32abi)" markers, all of the appended strings "…()(64bit)"
will be ripped out of dependencies, and a simpler (than adding
suffixes to all soname deps) will be used instead.

Unlikely to happen in 2012, the above is FYI because something
needs to be done with both x32 and ARM abi's pretty soon.

> zlib1 should follow to split elf 32, but grub would not be an
> easy task to convert to 64 bit; fortunately, if switching to
> grub2 it would no longer be an issue. What is holding grub2
> is updating /usr/sbin/bootloader-config and the related
> perl modules in drakxtools-backend to handle grub2, as well
> as some good amount of tests…
> 

Specific question:
	Is it feasible to consider grub -> grub2 switch in 2012

>  Too bad currently "urpmq --whatrequires 'libffi.so.4()(64bit)'" does
> not work, so, for some extra information, in my home desktop I have
> these other:
> 

There's no reason to expect urpmq and rpm to display the same
information atm: urpmq and rpm differ in what is commonly called
	Requires:

> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -e lib64ffi4
> error: Failed dependencies:
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed) ecl-11.1.1-2.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed) udisks-1.0.4-6.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg-0.10.13-1.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> lib64nm-util1-0.8.6.0-1.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed) lib64gck1_0-3.2.2-1.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed) gnome-keyring-3.2.2-1.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> lib64gnomecanvas2_0-2.30.3-4.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> lib64ORBit2_0-2.14.19-4.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> lib64gnome-vfs2_0-2.24.4-4.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed) lib64notify4-0.7.4-4.x86_64
>        libffi.so.4()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> lib64poppler-glib8-0.18.1-3.x86_64
> 
> Paulo
>