(I probably need to test bug 2166028 first also to see if ghc8.10 can rebuild now yet in koji.)

(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #0)
> Filtering out libffi symbols appears to be missing from the build:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=33414148
> 
> As seen by providing libffi:
> ~~~
> libffi.so.7()(64bit)
> libffi.so.7(LIBFFI_BASE_7.0)(64bit)
> libffi.so.7(LIBFFI_BASE_7.1)(64bit)
> libffi.so.7(LIBFFI_CLOSURE_7.0)(64bit)
> libffi.so.7(LIBFFI_COMPLEX_7.0)(64bit)
> libffi.so.7(LIBFFI_GO_CLOSURE_7.0)(64bit)
> ~~~
> 
> My expectation would be that ghc8.10 does not provide any of the libffi.so.*
> provides and that they are all filtered out.
> 
> See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/#_private_libraries

I think the problem is worse here: since libffi isn't just a private ghc library
it actually gets linked into some executables compiled by ghc as a runtime dependency.
I was wondering if libffi could be statically linked into ghc's RTS,
though I don't know how easy or possible/sufficient that is...?  I can try to ask at least.

I can show some examples from fedora packages if it helps.
Of course at some point later or sooner ghc8.10 will get dropped from Rawhide,
though I was still hoping to keep it around for a few more years.

Well we could try the filtering - it might still work -
not planning to build anything in Fedora with ghc8.10 going forward anyway.

The approach I tried to take was not to include libffi in the default ldconfig paths,
but rather use ghc's only generated RPATH's load the libffi, so it might just work out.

(s/only/own)

Probably it should be fine (I haven't tried yet), but I won't be able to build it until the Koji builders adopt mock-4.0.

Looking at this again... I am feeling a bit conflicted.

Could I even go the other way and add a ghc8.10-compat-libffi3.3 subpackage? :grimace:

Currently an executable built with ghc8.10
will be linked against the bundled libffi.so.7.
Users can install ghc8.10-base to satisfy the dependency.

With libffi.so.8 already in Fedora 38 and Rawhide, is it less of a problem?

(Also trying to ask upstream again about the possibility of static libffi linking, I suspect that may not work out.)

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 39 development cycle.
Changing version to 39.

This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 39 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 39 on 2024-11-26.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
'version' of '39'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden.
Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora Linux 39 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version
prior to this bug being closed.

Fedora Linux 39 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2024-11-26.

Fedora Linux 39 is no longer maintained, which means that it
will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we
are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux
please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version
field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see
the version field.

If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an
active release.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.