MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 15:02:47 +0200
Message-Id: <CL8LDO6OU12M.QWXQ02BR0P5L@sumire>
Cc: "Jakub Jirutka" <jakub@jirutka.cz>,
 "~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org" <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Subject: Re: Downgrading of x264-libs?
From: "alice" <alice@ayaya.dev>
To: "Mogens Jensen" <mogens-jensen@protonmail.com>
References: <axiBd3UVdWtecYxthXEO_9CrA2_SAlzDZ8RF2GpeMSrOOgcm5GOhtxq8SYOwmUfSs_3ZLBsvghWrcbKoqZeI5xgfvUma1oTVuIUL75RdDhU=@protonmail.com> <6dfb7ed6-abec-e1e0-e85c-6724efb98f6b@jirutka.cz> <CL82KC4XU56V.35PIY0O5RGOC4@sumire> <0uFUzhn5PLBzdJI879dbvirqcqxEio66ZZaf_R6rRRvu9Mv3ldQiRaOcIeRS6OqXk8pORvbhAKAjiMHVk1WvHW_wP8UYMAcH7kUMlLT8wDA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0uFUzhn5PLBzdJI879dbvirqcqxEio66ZZaf_R6rRRvu9Mv3ldQiRaOcIeRS6OqXk8pORvbhAKAjiMHVk1WvHW_wP8UYMAcH7kUMlLT8wDA=@protonmail.com>

On Wed Jul 6, 2022 at 2:48 PM CEST, Mogens Jensen wrote:
> Indeed there is no issue with the functionality of the system, but
> I do like to deduce a hypothesis when "weird" stuff happens on the
> systems I manage.
me too, but without actual logs all we can do is speculate, which is not
very 'exciting'. (not meant in any negative way)
>
> If I understand correctly, the only scenario where apk could
> "downgrade" is if the previous x264-libs pkgver was 20210613 or lower?
>
> If version 20210613-r0 was installed when the following was committed:
>
> community/x264: change version number to include ABI version
> https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/commit/a180db09f3b271548ca=
42478f2c6d27c2abe2f70
>
> Is it 100% sure that the package should have been upgraded on the
> system after that? Of course, normally a new version in pkgver would
> make apk upgrade the package, but maybe because of the change in
> version number scheme, the pkgrel should also have been set to 1 for
> apk to upgrade?
neither of those would upgrade. 20210613 -> 0.163 is a downgrade
regardless of pkgrel. but this was 5 months ago, and you said
recently; so i assumed it was 0.163->0.164.

if you actually had 20210613, then yes, it looks like a downgrade. this
is prevented unless you pass -a to apk upgrade, but -a is already
required between release branches (to swap all the repository markings),
so there is no issue for version upgrades. =20

there is an exception, where apk will still pull in downgrades to
satisfy dependencies for other things (i forget the specifics) and this
specific library is quite needed so, it probably did it regardless of
-a.

(and on edge, it's expected people somewhat know what they're doing and
run -a at least sometimes anyway.)

>
> I have tried to manually install x264-libs-20210613-r0.apk on an edge
> system with all repositories enabled, remove the string appended to
> package name in /etc/apk/world and run "apk update && apk upgrade -v".
> The result is that x264-libs is NOT upgraded. Even after running
> "apk add -v --upgrade x264-libs" apk still shows no updates.
this would not be possible as the package does not exist in any
repository anymore. even if you had it in cache (with a cache enabled)
it would not be present in any APKINDEX (unless you had a 3.15
repository or somesuch configured, i suppose?), so that simply doesn't
exist.

>
> With the following commit, pgrel was set to 1:
>
> community/x264: enable lto
> https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/commit/eecb4709387b5c56b5e=
4dfc8d28cf4923c754b24
>
> I know for a fact that this was the version installed on the systems I
> updated yesterday, that did not "downgrade" x264-libs. So maybe last
> time I updated these system, it was in the short window while
> x264-libs-0.163_git20210613-r1.apk was available on the mirror, which
> made apk upgrade from x264-libs-20210613-r0, that's why no "downgrade"
> happened on these yesterday.
i'm confused what you're saying here. how many upgrades happened and
what versions do you think were between each one? you say 'this' was the
version installed (0.163-r1), but it was 'upgraded from' 20210613, but
then there was more stuff that was the actual 'downgrade' and this
wasn't it.

the commit changing to 0.163 still had the same soname (.so.163) and so
wouldn't be upgraded to without -a (as it's a downgrade but everything
is still satisfied). once 0.164 was made things 'want' 0.164 so it gets
upgraded to.

>
> I see that ffmpeg4-libs-4.4.2-r2 and ffmpeg-libs-5.0.1-r3 depends on
> x264-libs-0.164_git20220602-r0, so maybe updating ffmpeg4-libs and
> ffmpeg-libs was the cause of x264-libs-20210613-r0 finally being
> upgraded to x264-libs-0.164_git20220602-r0 which caused the
> "Downgrading" message on this single system.
based on the above statement combined with this one there was a single
upgrade in a single step considered a downgrade, but you make it sound
like multiple because you say the 0.163-r1 was 'definitely' the one
installed but here it's 0.164 so if it triggered it it would.. not be
0.163? maybe you should draw a graph as i can't follow what you're
saying.

>
> Does that sounds plausible?
if you had 190284091284bunchofnumbers and the new version is 0.
(smaller), then yes, it's a downgrade.

>
> I know there have been some work on adding log file functionality to
> apk, does anyone know the status of that?
iirc it's added to apk3
https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/apk-tools/-/commit/646c834492a419a96b=
4032c230e842d27f87e997
>
> Best regards,
> Mogens Jensen