Merge ~lucaskanashiro/ubuntu/+source/ruby2.7:fix-hash-iteration into ubuntu/+source/ruby2.7:ubuntu/focal-devel
Proposed by
Lucas Kanashiro
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Approved by: | git-ubuntu bot |
Approved revision: | not available |
Merge reported by: | Lucas Kanashiro |
Merged at revision: | 3747a49e5cd4896d2da1b668fdd3b1e698f32de1 |
Proposed branch: | ~lucaskanashiro/ubuntu/+source/ruby2.7:fix-hash-iteration |
Merge into: | ubuntu/+source/ruby2.7:ubuntu/focal-devel |
Diff against target: |
58 lines (+36/-0) 3 files modified
debian/changelog (+7/-0) debian/patches/0026-reload-AR-table-body-for-transient-heap.patch (+28/-0) debian/patches/series (+1/-0) |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
git-ubuntu bot | Approve | ||
Bryce Harrington (community) | Approve | ||
Canonical Server Reporter | Pending | ||
Review via email:
|
Description of the change
Fix LP: #2018215. It is a straight backport of a upstream patch:
PPA with proposed package:
https:/
autopkgtest summary:
autopkgtest [06:20:58]: @@@@@@@
run-all PASS
bundled-gems PASS
builtin-extensions PASS
rubyconfig PASS
To post a comment you must log in.
The patch does look straightforward, and on visual inspection looks good to me.
I didn't spot the package in the PPA though, did it get uploaded? There's an older version, 2.7.0-5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2, but the changelog includes another fix, and I'm unsure if the autopkgtest results for that version are valid?
- ruby2.7/ 2.7.0-5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2
+ ❌ ruby2.7 on focal for ppc64el @ 03.05.23 14:46:37 Log️ 🗒️
• run-all FAIL 🟥
• bundled-gems PASS 🟩
• builtin-extensions PASS 🟩
• rubyconfig PASS 🟩
Unfortunately, downgrading to this version did not allow validating the fix:
root@ruby27- hash-iteration: ~# apt-cache policy ruby archive. ubuntu. com/ubuntu focal/main amd64 Packages dpkg/status hash-iteration: ~# apt-cache policy ruby2.7 archive. ubuntu. com/ubuntu focal-updates/main amd64 Packages security. ubuntu. com/ubuntu focal-security/main amd64 Packages dpkg/status 7.0-5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2 500 ppa.launchpad. net/lucaskanash iro/testing/ ubuntu focal/main amd64 Packages archive. ubuntu. com/ubuntu focal/main amd64 Packages hash-iteration: ~# apt-get install ruby=2. 7.0-5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2 5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2' for 'ruby' was not found hash-iteration: ~# apt-get install ruby2.7= 2.7.0-5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2 ppa.launchpad. net/lucaskanash iro/testing/ ubuntu focal/main amd64 ruby2.7 amd64 2.7.0-5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2 [108 kB] 9~ppa2 7_2.7.0- 5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2_ amd64.deb ... 5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2) over (2.7.0-5ubuntu1.9) ... 5ubuntu1. 9~ppa2) ... hash-iteration: ~# ruby bug.rb
ruby:
Installed: 1:2.7+1
Candidate: 1:2.7+1
Version table:
*** 1:2.7+1 500
500 http://
100 /var/lib/
root@ruby27-
ruby2.7:
Installed: 2.7.0-5ubuntu1.9
Candidate: 2.7.0-5ubuntu1.9
Version table:
*** 2.7.0-5ubuntu1.9 500
500 http://
500 http://
100 /var/lib/
2.
500 http://
2.7.0-5ubuntu1 500
500 http://
root@ruby27-
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Version '2.7.0-
root@ruby27-
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required:
libfreetype6
Use 'apt autoremove' to remove it.
The following packages will be DOWNGRADED:
ruby2.7
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 downgraded, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 108 kB of archives.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
Get:1 http://
Fetched 108 kB in 1s (142 kB/s)
dpkg: warning: downgrading ruby2.7 from 2.7.0-5ubuntu1.9 to 2.7.0-5ubuntu1.
(Reading database ... 33926 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../ruby2.
Unpacking ruby2.7 (2.7.0-
Setting up ruby2.7 (2.7.0-
Processing triggers for man-db (2.9.1-1) ...
root@ruby27-
Traceback (most recent call last):
1: from bug.rb:2:in `<main>'
bug.rb:2:in `each': ret: 2, hash modified during iteration (RuntimeError)
I think it'd be worthwhile to validate this in a PPA since the effect of the RHASH_AR_ TABLE_REF( ) macro is not immediately obvious.
The SRU text looks good, I've run through the test case to verify it reproduces th...