#1112337#5
Date:
2025-08-28 15:31:51 UTC
From:
To:
nmu varnish-modules_0.26.0-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild for the new varnish ABI."

I should have updated the ABI tag for my latest varnish upload even if
the ABI is actually compatible, because the version number changed too,
but I did not. Hence the need to binNMU varnish-modules.

#1112337#12
Date:
2025-09-08 10:11:14 UTC
From:
To:
I'm not sure I follow. You say the ABI is compatible, so why is the binNMU
needed? Why is the version number relevant?

Cheers,
Emilio

#1112337#17
Date:
2025-09-08 12:42:16 UTC
From:
To:
What I meant is that the ABI would be compatible, if only varnish did
not check the version number of the modules, so it is not.
Hence the need for a binNMU.

#1112337#22
Date:
2025-09-14 07:25:12 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,


I'm not so versed in ABI stuff, but Marco pointed out this bug when I
filed bug 1115183 that from his point that bug is block by this one.
*If* we were to binNMU varnish-modules, does the rebuild ensure proper
versioned dependencies? If not, I think rebuilding can't be the right
solution, just papering over the problem. As I see it, in Debian
binaries shouldn't be checking versions of other binary packages at
runtime, as we should be ensuring the right relations in dependency
relations (including Breaks etc), for reasons like this one among
others. Either things work as we ship them, or they don't (which would
be a bug needing fixing). Whether things work should ideally be tested
by running tests, e.g. autopkgtest, which I see happening for
varnish-modules.

Paul

#1112337#29
Date:
2025-09-14 07:44:00 UTC
From:
To:
Generally there is dh_varnishabi in place to enforce the dependencies
needed by the Varnish modules packages, but in this case the dependency
was not strict enough.
So you can binNMU varnish-modules or else I can make a new Varnish
upload with a different ABI dependency and after that and after
libvmod-digest will be out of NEW then you can binNMU varnish-modules
and all the other Varnish modules packages.
Up to you.
Considering the very low popcon and this not affecting a stable release
and NEW processing being in the picture, I strongly recommend the first
option.

#1112337#34
Date:
2025-09-18 07:12:36 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,


I'm not very excited that I just did it, but I went with your
suggestion. I expect you'll try to improve the code to prevent this in
the future.

Paul

#1112337#39
Date:
2025-09-18 09:36:29 UTC
From:
To:
This was not about code but about me...