[SRU] Backport zeromq3 4.2.0 to yakkety

Bug #1645308 reported by Łukasz Zemczak on 2016-11-28
10
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
zeromq3 (Ubuntu)
Medium
Unassigned
Yakkety
Medium
Łukasz Zemczak

Bug Description

[Impact]

As per product requirement, we have released a git-snapshot based pre-release version of zeromq3 4.2.0 to yakkety (4.1.5+git20160811+2fc86bc) as the upstream version was not yet available. The agreement was that we will release the snapshot-based version only if, once the official update is available we will update and switch.

The rationale for this would be that the snapshot-based version is anyway more-or-less feature compatible with the official version. It's also not wise to keep shipping a snapshot for long as some bugfixes might be missing from the cherry-pick. The generated binaries are binary-compatible, with only a few new symbols exported in the main 4.2.0 version.

[Test Case]

No particular test-case - installing the new version and making sure that existing reverse-dependencies still work as intended.

[Regression Potential]

There is, of course, some regression potential, but as already mentioned: there weren't too many commits since the git snapshot that our previous version was based off.

Changed in zeromq3 (Ubuntu Yakkety):
importance: Undecided → Medium
status: New → In Progress
Changed in zeromq3 (Ubuntu):
status: New → Fix Released
Changed in zeromq3 (Ubuntu Yakkety):
assignee: nobody → Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100)
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

This is blocked by the fact that 4.2.0 is stuck in zesty-proposed.

Changed in zeromq3 (Ubuntu Yakkety):
status: In Progress → Incomplete

Hello Łukasz, or anyone else affected,

Accepted zeromq3 into yakkety-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zeromq3/4.2.0-2ubuntu0.16.10 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed.Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

Changed in zeromq3 (Ubuntu Yakkety):
status: Incomplete → Fix Committed
tags: added: verification-needed
Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

Roughly tested zeromq3 4.2.0-2ubuntu0.16.10 on a yakkety VM and played around with python-zmq/python3-zmq bindings - seemed to work fine. Couldn't really find any other easy way to get this tested, but that's basically the same testing that has been done earlier. Also, seeing that 4.2.0 was in zesty for quite a while now I consider this tested.

tags: added: verification-done
removed: verification-needed
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

Did you notice that some autopackagetests have failed? From the SRU report:

Regression in autopkgtest for node-zmq (ppc64el): test log
Regression in autopkgtest for node-zmq (i386): test log
Regression in autopkgtest for node-zmq (armhf): test log
Regression in autopkgtest for node-zmq (amd64): test log

Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

Yes, it's on my plate - that's why I didn't release the SRU yet. Just, ugh, don't have the time to actually look into that deeper.

tags: added: verification-done-yakkety
removed: verification-done
Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100) wrote :

It seems that we have node-zmq autopkgtests failing with the new zeromq in yakkety. I will try looking into that and see if we can have all this working properly without pulling in any new node-zmq upstream version - if this won't work then I'll be opting for removing this SRU from -proposed.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers