[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#972912: Bug#972912: Incorrect fix to bug

[Sven Mueller]

Well, turns out that apparently nobody else bothers with a .symbols file
for Python extensions. I looked at the packages for samba, numpy, mypy and
python-stdlib-extensions. And if the Python maintainers themselves don't do
it, you probably shouldn't.

I attached a diff to remove the relevant file and the setup for it. I also
added some verbosity to the stuff debhelper does (I find it harder to debug
build issues without it).
I verified that except for this symbols file going away, nothing else
changed. (Most notable, the main libldb-dev package still looks the same.)
- Verified via diffoscope which only showed expected changes (timestamps,
mostly)

I'll see if I can turn it into a pull request on Salsa, but my git-foo
is weaker than it probably should be, so feel free to just apply my patch
yourself.
If I create a pull request, should that include an update to
debian/changelog?

Cheers,
Sven


Am Do., 17. Dez. 2020 um 16:55 Uhr schrieb Mathieu Parent <
math.parent at gmail.com>:

> Le jeu. 17 déc. 2020 à 16:48, Sven Mueller <sven.mueller72 at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
> >
> > Hi Mathieu.
>
> Hi,
>
> > Just wanted to say that your fix here seems wrong:
> > The symbols file says when a specific symbol for a specific lib was
> added.
> > If I rebuild ldb against Python 3.9, it will suddenly claim that - for
> example -  symbol PYLDB_UTIL_2.1.0 at PYLDB_UTIL_2.1.0 was added to the
> package - for the Python 3.9 specific lib - in package version 2:2.1.0 -
> Even though that package version was not built against Python 3.9 at all.
> >
> > The better fix would be to explicitly build against specific Python
> versions (python3.8-dev, python3.9-dev build dependencies) and have
> appropriate symbols listed for both of them.
> >
> > Currently, if a package builds against the ldb python bindings for
> Python 3.9, it will generate versioned dependencies that are incorrect (if
> all it uses would be the above symbol, it would depend on python3-ldb >=
> 2:2.1.0 - which didn't have any Python 3.9 bindings) - and fail after
> installation.
> >
> > To be fair though, I'm not even sure having the symbols file for the
> python bindings .so files makes much sense.
>
> OK. Could you submit a merge request fixing this? SInce the migration
> to python3, the bindings are getting complicated. Any help here is
> apprecciated.
>
> Regards
>
> Mathieu Parent
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20201221/8b09bacb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eliminate_python_ext_symbols.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4123 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20201221/8b09bacb/attachment.bin>