On Thu, 2021-03-18 at 14:38 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I don’t think all the testing that needs to be done when grafting can
> be
> automated.

Not all but part of it?

> In particular, packagers who want to introduce a replacement for a
> library should use libabigail’s ‘abi-diff’ tool to check that the
> package and its replacement are ABI-compatible.  It’s also a good
> idea
> to make some quick manual tests.

That's great! Maybe we can have some quick tooling to in GNU Guix to
aid that?

> The .so file symlinks in
> <
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=2e0ff59f0cd836b156f1ef2e78791d864ce3cfcd
> >
> look very scary to me.  To me, it’s likely to hide the ABI
> incompatibility issue rather than “fix” it.

:-/ Yes it is scary, we were having an user with an Inkscape issue on
IRC and this commit fixed it for them and they could work without an
issue though, we were discussing with rekado and rekado suggested we
cheat like this and I've done it, the only alternative we have is
porting/applying all patches to our version by digging commit history
(with always the doubt of adding an incomplete fix which is likely if
we have to dig commit history manually).

If nobody can put time to dig patches for all individuals CVEs until we
ungraft then I'd rather have this scary commit in.

Léo