Bug#1088624: transition: apt

[Julian Andres Klode]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: ***@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:apt
User: ***@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

We'd like to do a transition of APT, not before January. We still have
some ABI breaks to enqueue in the repo. My plan is to get the final
bits in during xmas season.

We have an issue where our ABI is not stable right now: We inadvertently
re-export C++ standard library symbols, but our version script adds a
version to them, and then ld at link time resolves references to
libstdc++ functions to their apt ones in libapt-pkg reverse
dependencies. We can fix this by hiding all std:: exports, which
is WIP, but breaks the ABI more, so we just need to be a bit
careful the next couple weeks.

There's plausibly some minor API breaks (APT::StringView is replaced
by std::string_view). Mostly I just desperately need to add a new field
to a class, though. I usually fix all reverse dependencies as it's
less than 10 or so.

This should aid dist-upgrades hopefully, as the new libapt-pkg will
be co-installable with the old one.

Ben file:

title = "apt";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64" | .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0";
is_good = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64";

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Post by Julian Andres Klode
affects -1 + src:apt

Bug #1088624 [release.debian.org] transition: apt
Added indication that 1088624 affects src:apt

[Julian Andres Klode]

Post by Julian Andres Klode
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Control: affects -1 + src:apt
Usertags: transition
We'd like to do a transition of APT, not before January. We still have
some ABI breaks to enqueue in the repo. My plan is to get the final
bits in during xmas season.
We have an issue where our ABI is not stable right now: We inadvertently
re-export C++ standard library symbols, but our version script adds a
version to them, and then ld at link time resolves references to
libstdc++ functions to their apt ones in libapt-pkg reverse
dependencies. We can fix this by hiding all std:: exports, which
is WIP, but breaks the ABI more, so we just need to be a bit
careful the next couple weeks.
There's plausibly some minor API breaks (APT::StringView is replaced
by std::string_view). Mostly I just desperately need to add a new field
to a class, though. I usually fix all reverse dependencies as it's
less than 10 or so.
This should aid dist-upgrades hopefully, as the new libapt-pkg will
be co-installable with the old one.
title = "apt";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64" | .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0";
is_good = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64";

I have uploaded 2.9.25+exp1 on the 22nd to experimental, and following
that 2.9.26+exp1 and 2.9.27+exp1; this is waiting on the ftpteam to
approve it, but every week with a new upload it gets rebased, so the
NEW list is misleadingly treating it as newer than it is and I'm afraid
people are not processing it.

[Julian Andres Klode]

Post by Julian Andres Klode

Post by Julian Andres Klode
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Control: affects -1 + src:apt
Usertags: transition
We'd like to do a transition of APT, not before January. We still have
some ABI breaks to enqueue in the repo. My plan is to get the final
bits in during xmas season.
We have an issue where our ABI is not stable right now: We inadvertently
re-export C++ standard library symbols, but our version script adds a
version to them, and then ld at link time resolves references to
libstdc++ functions to their apt ones in libapt-pkg reverse
dependencies. We can fix this by hiding all std:: exports, which
is WIP, but breaks the ABI more, so we just need to be a bit
careful the next couple weeks.
There's plausibly some minor API breaks (APT::StringView is replaced
by std::string_view). Mostly I just desperately need to add a new field
to a class, though. I usually fix all reverse dependencies as it's
less than 10 or so.
This should aid dist-upgrades hopefully, as the new libapt-pkg will
be co-installable with the old one.
title = "apt";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64" | .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0";
is_good = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64";

I have uploaded 2.9.25+exp1 on the 22nd to experimental, and following
that 2.9.26+exp1 and 2.9.27+exp1; this is waiting on the ftpteam to
approve it, but every week with a new upload it gets rebased, so the
NEW list is misleadingly treating it as newer than it is and I'm afraid
people are not processing it.

APT 2.9.29+exp1 has now been accepted into experimental. We are more
or less ready to go next week; I'm currently doing some test rebuilds
in an Ubuntu PPA and will start the transition there on Monday.

As far as I can tell, only packagekit and aptitude need sourceful
changes, to accomodate return value of some functions changing to
std::string_view. I can do team upload for aptitude and am also
an uploader for packagekit, so this should go smoothly.

Please let me know when I should proceed with the uploads in
Debian.

[Julian Andres Klode]

I'm ready to go.

I have completed all reverse dependency rebuilds and patches.

The following sourceful changes are needed:

* packagekit (co-maintainer, will upload, prepared in Salsa)
* aptitude (team maintainer, will upload, prepared in Salsa)
* python-apt (maintainer, will upload, prepared in Salsa)
* synaptic (will NMU; taking this off mvo's hands :D)
* libapt-pkg-perl (patch in BTS; could NMU)

The changes are basically wrapping flNotDir() and flExtension in
std::string{} calls, and replacing a _strtabexpand call in synaptic
with SubstVar(.., "\t", " "). Trivial stuff.

The following dependencies just need binNMUs:

* apt-move
* libqapt
* postgresql-debversion
* ruby-debian

The following reverse dependencies will be removed from testing:

* libept (RoM; auto removal will trigger on March 3...)

[Graham Inggs]

Control: tags -1 confirmed

Hi Julian

Please go ahead.

Regards
Graham

[Julian Andres Klode]

Post by Graham Inggs
Control: tags -1 confirmed
Hi Julian
Please go ahead.

Transition is now in progress. I just uploaded apt 2.9.30. I
will sleep a night and hope it's build tomorrow everywhere,
and then upload the reverse dependencies (I don't want to
hardcode new Build-Depends as they still build fine with
old versions, otherwise I'd have uploaded them now...).

Thanks!

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

tags -1 confirmed

Bug #1088624 [release.debian.org] transition: apt
Added tag(s) confirmed.

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 1 Mar 2025 13:26:05 +0100
with message-id <***@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1088624: transition: apt
has caused the Debian Bug report #1088624,
regarding transition: apt
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ***@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)