[Bug 2097317] Re: bpftrace: error while loading shared libraries: libLLVM-18.so.18.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

[Andreas Hasenack]

My argument for having this in 24.04.2 is that it will undo the damage
caused to those who upgraded to the bad bpftrace 0.20.2-1ubuntu4.2, just
by being version 0.20.2-1ubuntu4.3 and upgrading the bad one. In any
other way, this should be identical to 0.20.2-1ubuntu4 which is what is
available in noble at the moment.

That being said, it doesn't have to be in the image, and can be a 0-day
SRU after the noble point release, but that means users broken by
0.20.2-1ubuntu4.2 who haven't downgraded to 0.20.2-1ubuntu4 (or don't
know how to), will have to wait about a week more to get the official
fix. But they could also install 4.3 from noble-proposed until then.

But there is also the risk of releasing something like this with 0 or 1
day of ageing, given that it regressed once before.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to bpftrace in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2097317

Title:
  bpftrace: error while loading shared libraries: libLLVM-18.so.18.1:
  cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Status in bpftrace package in Ubuntu:
  Confirmed
Status in bpftrace source package in Noble:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [impact]
  bpftrace 0.20.2-1ubuntu4.2 is broken with the version of llvm-toolchain-18 in noble-updates:

  Regression from https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bpftrace/+bug/2081848
  root at nsnx2:~# bpftrace
  bpftrace: error while loading shared libraries: libLLVM-18.so.18.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

  [test plan]
  bpftrace runs tests during build which verifies _something_ but also we should install bpftrace on a system that has no other packages from proposed run a simple command such as "sudo bpftrace -e 'kprobe:do_nanosleep { printf("%d sleeping\n", pid); }'".

  [regression potential]
  It is still possible that rebuilding bpftrace is not safe because of some other change in the archive since release. The tests should catch most of these, but if there is some other regression caused by building against a version in proposed and running against a version in release or updates it might not be caught (and sadly neither would the autopkgtests, they just build and run the tests). It's not clear what to do about this (other than improve the autopkgtests).

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bpftrace/+bug/2097317/+subscriptions