* [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options cqi at redhat dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cqi at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|support abipkgdiff new |Make fedabipkgdiff compare
|--devel1 and --devel2 |rpms with development
|options |package by default
--- Comment #6 from Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to dodji from comment #5)
> "cqi at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> writes:
>
> > What about the new option's name?
>
> Like I explained in a comment before, I think there should be no new
> option.
>
> By default, the devel package should always be downloaded and used to
> perform the ABI comparison, just like we download the debuginfo package.
> The devel package should always be used, *unless* the user doesn't want
> to. In that case, the option to avoid downloading the package could be
> --no-devel-package, or something like that.
>
> Cheers,
aha, you mean this is the default operation.
I would suggest --no-devel-pkg to fedabipkgdiff, it's similar with --devel-pkg1
and --devel-pkg2 of abipkgdiff and should be easier to remember and understand
for users. What do you think?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default cqi at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cqi at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|support --devel[12] |support abipkgdiff new
| |--devel1 and --devel2
| |options
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options cqi at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cqi at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
--- Comment #3 from Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> ---
What about the new option's name?
--devel
--with-devel
--compare-with-devel
or others?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dodji at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
dodji at redhat dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dodji at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
dodji at redhat dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dodji at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
> fedabipkgdiff should also support both of them
Hmmh, I am not sure what this mean, but 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.
Then, fedabipkgdiff should invoke abipkgdiff by passing it the development
packages (along with the debug info packages) by using the --devel1 and
--devel2 options.
I guess we could have a --no-devel option to fedabipkgdiff that would instruct
it to avoid using the development packages. In this mode, the tool won't
specify the --devel1 and --devel2 options of abipkgdiff.
> and pass to abipkgdiff properly with *-devel packages.
Right.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cqi at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
--- Comment #2 from Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to dodji from comment #1)
> > fedabipkgdiff should also support both of them
>
> Hmmh, I am not sure what this mean, but 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 specified,
all rpms of a build are retrieved.
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.
>
> Then, fedabipkgdiff should invoke abipkgdiff by passing it the development
> packages (along with the debug info packages) by using the --devel1 and
> --devel2 options.
>
> I guess we could have a --no-devel option to fedabipkgdiff that would
> instruct it to avoid using the development packages. In this mode, the tool
> won't specify the --devel1 and --devel2 options of abipkgdiff.
>
Is --no-devel necessary here? I think it might not. We can use a simple way to
determine, that is if the new option is omitted, it just means "--no-devel" and
do not handle the --devel[12] options, if not omitted, behavior is that above.
> > and pass to abipkgdiff properly with *-devel packages.
>
> Right.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default dodji at redhat dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dodji at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
--- Comment #4 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
"cqi at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> 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 specified,
> 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.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dodji at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
--- Comment #7 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
"cqi at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> writes:
> I would suggest --no-devel-pkg to fedabipkgdiff, it's similar with
> --devel-pkg1 and --devel-pkg2 of abipkgdiff and should be easier to
> remember and understand for users. What do you think?
This sounds right, yes.
Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default dodji at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options dodji at redhat dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cqi at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] Make fedabipkgdiff compare rpms with development package by default
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
2016-01-01 0:00 ` [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options dodji at redhat dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: cqi at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> ---
This is fixed and included in Libabigail 1.0.rc5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug default/20135] support abipkgdiff new --devel1 and --devel2 options
2016-01-01 0:00 [Bug default/20135] New: support --devel[12] cqi at redhat dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2016-01-01 0:00 ` cqi at redhat dot com
@ 2016-01-01 0:00 ` dodji at redhat dot com
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dodji at redhat dot com @ 2016-01-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libabigail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20135
--- Comment #5 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
"cqi at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> writes:
> What about the new option's name?
Like I explained in a comment before, I think there should be no new
option.
By default, the devel package should always be downloaded and used to
perform the ABI comparison, just like we download the debuginfo package.
The devel package should always be used, *unless* the user doesn't want
to. In that case, the option to avoid downloading the package could be
--no-devel-package, or something like that.
Cheers,
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread