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

[Andreas Hasenack]

Hello Mitsuya, or anyone else affected,

Accepted bsfilter into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bsfilter/1:1.0.19-2.1ubuntu0.1 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package.  See
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how
to enable and use -proposed.  Your feedback will aid us getting this
update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug,
mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been
performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed-
jammy to verification-done-jammy. If it does not fix the bug for you,
please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-
failed-jammy. In either case, without details of your testing we will
not be able to proceed.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification .  Thank you in
advance for helping!

N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s)
fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in
-proposed for a minimum of 7 days.

** Changed in: bsfilter (Ubuntu Jammy)
       Status: In Progress => Fix Committed

** Tags removed: verification-done verification-done-jammy
** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-jammy

-- 
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:
  Fix Committed
Status in ruby-sdbm source package in Jammy:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  [Impact]

  In jammy, the bsfilter package assumes that ruby has the sdbm library
  built in. However, the sdbm library was removed in Ruby 3.0 and became
  a separate package. Therefore, the learning function of bsfilter does
  not work anymore.

  Therefore, we will add the ruby-sdbm package to bsfilter's Depends
  field.

  [Test Plan]

  $ lxc launch ubuntu-daily:jammy bsfilter-test
  $ lxc shell bsfilter-test
  # apt install -y bsfilter
  # touch foo 
  # bsfilter --sub-clean --add-spam --insert-flag --insert-probability --update foo
  # echo $?
  0

  no display load error for "require" instruction, and bsfilter command
  should succeed.

  [Where problems could occur]

  The bsfilter command always fails if ruby-sdbm is not installed,
  because it tries to load the sdbm library by default if the DB option
  is unspecified. Therefore, I consider that there is no risk of
  regression.

  ---

  Following for SRU of ruby-sdbm

  [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