# clarify issue in 972936 retitle 972936 removal of libgcc-s1 breaks the whole system fixed 972936 10.2.0-16 # # purely cosmetic, as this specific issue is fixed severity 964477 serious thanks
Hi, On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 11:31:07AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=964477#69 > now claims this is gone with the removal of gcc-8 It seems there is some confusion between #972936 and #964477, as the bug log of #972936 contains some info that's only relevant for #964477. First, bug 972936: The issue as reported in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=972936#5 was fixed in gcc-10 10.2.0-16 with the change suggested by Julian in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=972936#24 "Mark libgcc-sN with XB-Important/Protected: yes. Addresses: #972936" I can reproduce the original issue when installing libgcc-s1 from bullseye from snapshot based on this link: deb [check-valid-until=no] https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20201012T000000Z/ bullseye main When installing libgcc-s1 from current bullseye, apt is no longer willing to remove libgcc-s1 (without 'do as I say'). Now bug 964477: This bug can be reproduced based on Ryans script: On a buster system: apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends gcc-8 libc6-dev libreoffice Switch the sources.list to a bullseye snapshot from before the removal of gcc-8 (see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=964477#64) Then run apt-get -y dist-upgrade to get the error. When trying to upgrade to a current version of bullseye, the issue doesn't show up, because gcc-8 is no longer there. So it seems this issue was resolved with the removal of gcc-8 from testing. I also can confirm that trying to upgrade to a snapshot of bullseye that has gcc-8 works with the packages from Ryan based on this sources entry: deb http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/rpavlik:/bullseye-fix/Debian_Testing/ ./ (which needs https://salsa.debian.org/rpavlik/gcc-upgrade-testcase/-/blob/main/workaround.asc to be accepted by apt) Even though the issue from 964477 is fixed, it's possible that there are similar issue (not related to gcc-8) we are currently unaware of. So it might still be useful to reintroduce the transitional packages, as suggested by David in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=964477#41 Finally, I think 964477 should be marked as serious (even though that's purely cosmetic now, as the bug is fixed). Cheers, Ivo