[oech3]

This PR adds guide to get latest stable version of GNU coreutils for bug reporters (with some warnings).

packager of GNU coreutils is @BAMF0

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will improve performance by 4.88%

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 1 improved benchmark
✅ 326 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 46 skipped benchmarks¹

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	Simulation	sort_ascii_utf8_locale	16.1 ms	15.4 ms	+4.88%

Tip

Curious why this is faster? Comment @codspeedbot explain why this is faster on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing oech3:patch-4 (453f76f) with main (77933ae)}

Footnotes

1. 46 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/tail/retry (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/cut/bounded-memory (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/rm/isatty (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/pid-pipe (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Congrats! The gnu test tests/cp/link-heap is now passing!

[collinfunk]

I'm not sure why Ubuntu has an older GNU coreutils package than uutils. It seems like poor user interface to me.

Given that you cannot switch to GNU coreutils, despite promises otherwise, because it would break build-essential, I guess it is too be expected...

[oech3]

I think they are intentionally masking improvement of GNU by using legacy version to encourage usage of rust-coreutils.

[xtqqczze]

Given that you cannot switch to GNU coreutils, despite promises otherwise, because it would break build-essential

The build-essential issue is tracked downstream, and has a fix released.

[sylvestre]

I think they are intentionally masking improvement of GNU by using legacy version to encourage usage of rust-coreutils.

they aren't. and this isn't the place to speculate on Ubuntu's strategy
Especially when you wrote:
https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/pull/15334/changes
with a package proposed by a Canonical employee (@BAMF0)

[oech3]

Sorry

[xtqqczze]

Agreed that it isn't helpful to speculate on Ubuntu's strategy regarding coreutils in this repo. That said, the PR cited was submitted four months after the original comment.

[sylvestre]

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rust-coreutils/+bug/2169782 for the explanation from Simon
TLDR: The Debian package hasn't been updated for a while

[collinfunk]

More accurately, GNU coreutils is unsupported on Ubuntu, aside from copying the latest changes from Debian testing. Bug reports will be left unaddressed and unfixed.

[xtqqczze]

@collinfunk I understand you're a GNU coreutils maintainer, so could you clarify what you mean by GNU coreutils being unsupported on Ubuntu? Is this the project's official position, or are you referring to how Ubuntu handles packaging and bug reports?

[collinfunk]

It is Ubuntu's policy in practice. Launchpad reports for GNU coreutils are completely ignored, and the package's outdated status is blamed on the Debian maintainer.

[xtqqczze]

If the package's outdated status ultimately comes down to Debian, it seems the issue is blocked there. Wouldn't it be in everyone's interest to help get the Debian package updated?

[collinfunk]

If the package's outdated status ultimately comes down to Debian, it seems the issue is blocked there. Wouldn't it be in everyone's interest to help get the Debian package updated?

I very much dislike this framing. Ubuntu is its own distribution at the end of the day. Their decision to distribute an outdated version of GNU coreutils rests solely with them. Debian maintainers should not need to consider how their schedule impacts Ubuntu.

[xtqqczze]

Fair point. Canonical is responsible for the packages it chooses to ship in Ubuntu.

[BAMF0]

@collinfunk I don't think this is the place to take this, but I would like to explore the possibility of reaching some form of reconciliation here. How about this:

• I will go through our GNU coreutils bug backlog on Launchpad and try to get issues fixed for 27.04. If there's any particular issues you recommend getting fixed, please point me in the right direction
• I can make an attempt to see whether getting 9.12 into 27.04 would get accepted by Ubuntu; I have already packaged it in my own PPA after all. If you have any good arguments at the top of your head for getting it merged, I'd be happy to hear them.

Does this sound alright? I will make a bug report on Launchpad where we can discuss this further as this is a separate topic from the uutils project (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/coreutils/+bug/2171474)

[oech3]

If you have any good arguments at the top of your head for getting it merged

I think contributors of uutils coming from Ubuntu(and debian) want to install latest GNU coreutils.

[xtqqczze]

I'm proposing further changes to CONTRIBUTING.md in #15542 to clarify some wording around the PPA and who is responsible for maintaining it.