[Pkg-xen-devel] Help wanted with Debian Xen packages ?

[Stefan Bader]

On 27.09.2016 17:07, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefan Bader writes ("Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Help wanted with Debian Xen packages ?"):
>> FWIW, I think I got the library naming cleaned up now
>> (~rc5). Slightly different approach as I had to either keep the
>> major.minor .so versions (I believe because of the map files) or
>> libvirt would fail to compile against the xen lib.
> 
> I haven't looked at this but it sounds annoying.

Though I would not say I am very proficient in this area, it feels like the
soversioning and map files are moves into a better direction. The existing ones
which get renamed and drop the soversion were just using the Xen version for
that, regardless of what functions were kept or changed. The new ones seem to go
for soversions that change only when the api changes.

So having the rename plus keeping the soversion of the new libs felt like the
best compromise. The renaming allows to have multiple versions of libxen
installed. Which became more problematic with libxl. Not when only the xen
toolstack is used, but with other packages linking against (one version of) it.
Like libvirt, it will either work or not, depending on which version of the
hypervisor is running and against which version of libxl it got compiled against.

> 
> Xen 4.8 is freezing RSN.  I would like to get Xen 4.8 into stretch.  I
> think we should probably be aiming to upload a lateish Xen 4.8 RC into
> stretch when it comes out.  Xen 4.8.0 will have been out for a while
> by the Debian soft freeze in January.  Getting 4.8 into sid and
> stretch will also mean that the recent security vulnerabilities will
> be fixed; currently stretch is in rather poor shape.

Yeah, its lagging quite a bit. Moving there will face the same lib issues. Not
sure whether the src deb from my ppa would be a help to start from. Some of the
debian patches will always have to be refreshed manually, but at least some of
the no longer needed ones would be gone from there.
What likely needs better review is some of the new things which I did not pick
for the binary package because they were not used before and nothing seemed to
complain about them missing (like some fsimage lib IIRC).

-Stefan


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20160930/b5048059/attachment.sig>