From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94373 invoked by alias); 24 May 2016 21:53:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libabigail-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: libabigail-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 94286 invoked by uid 55); 24 May 2016 21:53:02 -0000 From: "dodji at redhat dot com" To: libabigail@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: libabigail X-Bugzilla-Component: default X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: dodji at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cqi at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2016-q2/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D20135 --- Comment #4 from dodji at redhat dot com --- "cqi at redhat dot com" writes: >> just to clarify, I believe that fedabipkgdiff should always retrieve >> (from the Koji build system) the development packages associated to >> the package that the user want to compare the ABI for. > > Not always. Without specifying --all-subpackages option, only package and > debuginfo package are retrieved from Koji, if --all-subpackages is specif= ied, > all rpms of a build are retrieved. Well, I think that in the new default mode, fedabipkgdiff should retrieve the -devel package too, just like how it retrieves the debuginfo package. So in the new default, fedabipkgdiff should always retrieve the -devel package *and* the debuginfo package. You can think of the -devel package as being mandatory now, just like the debuginfo package is. OK, in practice, neither the debuginfo nor the -devel package are mandatory, because abipkgdiff can function without them. It's just that "in practise", the result of abipkgdiff is potentially *much less* useful without them. So we almost always want them -- yes, the -devel package too, now. > Regarding to this bug, a simple change would be, if the new option, > that would be named --devel or --with-devel whatever, devel packages > must be retrieved and passed to abipkgdiff --devel1 and --devel2 > options correctly. Sorry, no. In this matter, I think the user should not ask for anything specifically. By default, if there is a devel subpackage, we should retrieve it. Just like we retrieve the debug info package. Or would that be a problem? I am saying this because by default, fedabipkgdiff should report about ABI changes with the *minimum* amount of noise possible. And using the -devel packages allows to minimize that noise, by filtering out ABI change reports about types that are not defined in header files. I think this is something that has a big value for many library package maintainers. Now, for the few brave maintainers who want to see all ABI change reports, unfiltered, I guess we can add options to do that :-) Hence the --no-devel-package option I was referring to earlier, or something similar. I hope this helps. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.