NetBSD Problem Report #42182

From jmcneill@plonker.localdomain  Wed Oct 14 11:45:22 2009
Return-Path: <jmcneill@plonker.localdomain>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [204.152.190.11])
	by www.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570DE63B8B6
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20091014114510.D86445E9E65@plonker.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: jmcneill@invisible.ca
Reply-To: jmcneill@invisible.ca
To: gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org
Subject: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.95

>Number:         42182
>Category:       lib
>Synopsis:       libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       high
>Responsible:    lib-bug-people
>State:          closed
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Oct 14 11:50:01 +0000 2009
>Closed-Date:    Sat Dec 19 02:51:49 +0000 2015
>Last-Modified:  Sat Dec 19 02:51:49 +0000 2015
>Originator:     Jared D. McNeill
>Release:        NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
>Organization:

>Environment:


System: NetBSD plonker 5.0_STABLE NetBSD 5.0_STABLE (GENERIC) #0: Sun Oct 11 05:22:33 UTC 2009 builds@b7.netbsd.org:/home/builds/ab/netbsd-5/i386/200910110000Z-obj/home/builds/ab/netbsd-5/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC i386
Architecture: i386
Machine: i386
>Description:
	netbsd-5-0 branch provides libpixman-1.so.0 but netbsd-5 has
	libpixman-1.so.1, making binary packages incompatible.
>How-To-Repeat:
	1. fresh install of 5.0_STABLE
	2. pkg_add gnome
	3. gnome-session

	Shared object "libpixman-1.so.0" not found
>Fix:


>Release-Note:

>Audit-Trail:
From: Julian Coleman <jdc@coris.org.uk>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:04:19 +0100

 Hi,

 > 	netbsd-5-0 branch provides libpixman-1.so.0 but netbsd-5 has
 > 	libpixman-1.so.1, making binary packages incompatible.

 I also see changes to the major for libXfont:

 < /usr/X11R7/lib/libXfont.so.1.4.1
 > /usr/X11R7/lib/libXfont.so.2.0

 Thanks,

 J

 -- 
   My other computer also runs NetBSD    /        Sailing at Newbiggin
         http://www.netbsd.org/        /   http://www.newbigginsailingclub.org/

From: David Gutteridge <dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:08:30 -0400

 Those two libraries are also not covered off by the postinstall(8)
 obsolete check.  So an upgrade masks the problem.  (I've just
 encountered this.)

 Dave

From: Soren Jacobsen <snj@pobox.com>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org, Jared McNeill <jmcneill@invisible.ca>, David
 Gutteridge <dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD
 5.0_STABLE
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:50:41 -0700

 On Oct 31, 2009, at 11:45 AM, David Gutteridge wrote:

 > The following reply was made to PR lib/42182; it has been noted by  
 > GNATS.
 >
 > From: David Gutteridge <dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca>
 > To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in  
 > NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
 > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:08:30 -0400
 >
 > Those two libraries are also not covered off by the postinstall(8)
 > obsolete check.  So an upgrade masks the problem.  (I've just
 > encountered this.)

 What do you mean covered off by the postinstall obsolete check?

 Removing the old libraries would make the situation even worse, and I  
 wouldn't call leaving them in place masking the problem.

 I'm not sure there's really much that can be done about this PR.   
 We'll need to have separate 5.0 and 5.1 pkg binaries, but after an  
 upgrade, no previously installed packages should break, because the  
 old libraries will still be installed.

 pkg_add has always (or at least for quite a long time -- I can't say  
 off of the top of my head whether this check has been there since the  
 very beginning) complained about version differences, and this is one  
 of the cases "protected" (in the sense of "yes, I admit it sucks, but  
 hey, technically we did warn you") by this check.

From: "David H. Gutteridge" <dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca>
To: Soren Jacobsen <snj@pobox.com>
Cc: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:28:01 -0400

 On 2009-10-31, at 5:50 PM, Soren Jacobsen wrote:

 > On Oct 31, 2009, at 11:45 AM, David Gutteridge wrote:
 >
 >> The following reply was made to PR lib/42182; it has been noted by  
 >> GNATS.
 >>
 >> From: David Gutteridge <dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca>
 >> To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
 >> Cc:
 >> Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in  
 >> NetBSD 5.0_STABLE
 >> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:08:30 -0400
 >>
 >> Those two libraries are also not covered off by the postinstall(8)
 >> obsolete check.  So an upgrade masks the problem.  (I've just
 >> encountered this.)
 >
 > What do you mean covered off by the postinstall obsolete check?
 >
 > Removing the old libraries would make the situation even worse, and  
 > I wouldn't call leaving them in place masking the problem.
 >
 > I'm not sure there's really much that can be done about this PR.   
 > We'll need to have separate 5.0 and 5.1 pkg binaries, but after an  
 > upgrade, no previously installed packages should break, because the  
 > old libraries will still be installed.
 >
 > pkg_add has always (or at least for quite a long time -- I can't say  
 > off of the top of my head whether this check has been there since  
 > the very beginning) complained about version differences, and this  
 > is one of the cases "protected" (in the sense of "yes, I admit it  
 > sucks, but hey, technically we did warn you") by this check.
 >

 I must have just misunderstood the meaning of "obsolete", then.  I took
 it to be functionality that shows any differences from what the state
 of the system would be if a clean install had been done instead of an
 upgrade from source.  (Local customizations aside.)  But it's more
 nuanced/sophisticated/specialized than that, then.  (My notion of it in
 part was as a support tool to explain differences between systems with
 the same release branch and CVS source date.  Obviously that's not its
 primary purpose, regardless.)

 By "masks the problem", I meant the version mismatch probably hasn't
 turned up for too many people, so that's why there wasn't much traffic
 about this topic.  I was alluding more to the fact I hadn't seen it
 documented elsewhere, and was offering an explanation as to why it
 might've been missed.  (Here's where someone will show me an incredibly
 obvious place it was mentioned that I overlooked...)

 Sorry for the misunderstanding,

 Dave

From: David Holland <dholland-bugs@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: Soren Jacobsen <snj@netbsd.org>
Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD
	5.0_STABLE
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 07:45:16 +0000

 On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:55:06PM +0000, Soren Jacobsen wrote:
  >  I'm not sure there's really much that can be done about this PR.   
  >  We'll need to have separate 5.0 and 5.1 pkg binaries, but after an  
  >  upgrade, no previously installed packages should break, because the  
  >  old libraries will still be installed.

 There are still cases where it matters, e.g. copying your own binaries
 from a 5.0 machine to a 5.1 machine, sharing /usr/local/bin, etc.

 Can adequately compatible versions of these libs be built from the
 right version of the corresponding stuff in pkgsrc? That would allow
 setting up a compat package without too much hassle. (Maybe, perhaps
 modulo lossage in x11-links.)

 -- 
 David A. Holland
 dholland@netbsd.org

From: David Holland <dholland-bugs@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: lib/42182: libpixman-1.so.0 is no longer available in NetBSD
	5.0_STABLE
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 07:51:57 +0000

 (also note PR 43306, which I'm closing as a duplicate but which has
 some possibly useful observations in it.)

 -- 
 David A. Holland
 dholland@netbsd.org

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: dholland@NetBSD.org
State-Changed-When: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 02:51:49 +0000
State-Changed-Why:
-5 and its X issues are now EOL


>Unformatted:

Home	PR Database Search