Hello all, Here is a quick update on progress since I filed the transition bug at Debconf:
The current stats for this transition are as follows: * Number of binNMUs needed: 571[1] (no change) * Number of arch:any packages which FTBFS with perl 5.22: 8 (was 9) * 1 fix in experimental; 7 needing more work or removal. * libapache2-mod-perl2 remains problematic, but upstream have indicated willingness to fix the problem recently[2] * If it comes to it, I suppose that removing the package from testing is an option, though it won't be particularly popular * Number of arch:all packages which FTBFS with perl 5.22: 19 (was ~ 60)[3], with with delayed uploads pending for 7 of those * I finally finished catching up with my rebuild logs, and filed a few extra bugs subsequent to my last report * Special thanks to gregoa, who has put an huge amount of work into squashing these bugs, especially on the NMU side. * Total number of FTBFS bugs closed: 235 I'm continuing rebuilds of arch:any packages which depend on perlapi-* or libperl* daily, so the test repository[4] remains almost up-to-date with the archive. Problem reports welcome (to me), and of course further testing (in a controlled, development environment) of packages you use is welcome. Experimental now has the version of perl with the reproducible build fixes (5.22.0-3). Thanks to Niko and Lunar for those! There's not much movement on 5.22.1 so I am assuming we'll transition with something very similar to 5.22.0-3. Since the last report, perl started FTBFS on kfreebsd-*, due to a kernel change[5], but since they are no longer release architectures that issue shouldn't, I believe, block the transition. There is a small bug in the multi-arch support we're introducing in perl 5.22[6], which means that libperl5.22 isn't co-installable between architectures, even though it should be. This isn't technically a blocker for the transition, but may qualify as RC once the package is unstable, so it should be fixed soon. That should be reasonably straightforward. In other multi-arch news, the proposed change to the perl policy[7] should be updated to reflect the subsequent minor changes to paths[8]. This does not block the transition. The package layout change was announced to d-d-a in [9]. To my knowledge, we didn't get any feedback. The release team have indicated informally that they aren't far off being ready for the perl transition, but there is still quite a bit of fallout from the libstdc++ transition. On their signal, we can upgrade the FTBFS bugs to RC severity. Cheers, Dominic (for the perl and pkg-perl teams) [1] <https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/perl.html> [2] <https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=101962> [3] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=perl-5.22-transition;users=debian-p...@lists.debian.org> [4] <https://people.debian.org/~dom/perl/test/perl-5.22.0/> [5] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=796798> [6] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797106> [7] <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/perl-maintainers/2015-May/004889.html> [8] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798309> [9] <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/08/msg00010.html>