[Bug 1979128] Re: [SRU] ruby-sdbm should be backported to jammy

[Lucas Kanashiro]

Now, LGTM. Could you update the bug description following the SRU
template for bsfilter instead of ruby-sdbm before I upload the package?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Sponsors Team, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1979128

Title:
  [SRU] ruby-sdbm should be backported to jammy

Status in bsfilter package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in ruby-sdbm package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in bsfilter source package in Jammy:
  In Progress
Status in ruby-sdbm source package in Jammy:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  [Impact]

  In Ruby 3.0, sdbm has been removed from the standard library[1].
  However, some packages, such as the bsfilter package, will fail at
  startup without the sdbm library, LP: #1972040 .

  The ruby-sdbm package does not exist in Jammy, only in Kinetic.
  Therefore, backporting ruby-sdbm from kinetic to jammy and relying on
  ruby-sdbm on the bsfilter side seems to solve the problem.

  [1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2020/12/25/ruby-3-0-0-released/

  [Test Plan]

  $ lxc launch ubuntu-daily:jammy ruby-sdbm-test
  $ lxc shell ruby-sdbm-test
  # apt install -y ruby-sdbm
  # ruby -e "require 'sdbm'; SDBM.open 'my_database' do |db| db.update('foo' => 'bar') end"

  The command above will create 2 files: my_database.dir and
  my_database.pag. No exception is expected.

  [Where problems could occur]

  The ruby-sdbm package does not exist in Jammy, I do not believe that
  any regression will occur.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bsfilter/+bug/1979128/+subscriptions