On 14/05/2026 15:38, Micha Lenk wrote: > Hi Alec, > > Alec Leamas <[email protected]> hat am 11.05.2026 23:15 CEST geschrieben: >> >> >> Dear List, >> >> I have problems with the opencpn package. >> >> Upstream released the 5.14 version about two months ago. As usual, I pushed >> a new version to sid. When everything works, as it usually does, the sid >> version is migrated to testing and I can make the backports which almost all >> Debian users use. >> >> However, opencpn in sid has become FTBFS due to problems in the glew package >> [1]. This problem looks complicated and not likely to be resolved shortly. >> >> I also have a libcxx-serial dependency to update [2]. This is something I >> control and will do. >> >> opencpn is a leaf package without reverse deps which builds just fine >> against testing. Given this, would it be possible to get an exception to >> make trixie and bookworm backports from sid rather than testing? >> >> Or, is there some other way Debian users don't have to wait for (probably) >> months for 5.14? >> >> I might need to make a new upload, likely after fixing libcxx-serial. But >> without an exception this is not a priority. >> >> Thoughts? >
> For now I'd prefer if we could instead invest the resource to fix the > situation in sid, i.e. help to fix the RC bug in glew so that it can cleanly > transition to testing before we do a backport. At least #1136422 on glew > seems to be actively worked on... I have no way to help with the glew bug which is above my paygrade. This basically boils down to that our users will have to wait for the backports. From a user perspective I see no good reasons for this with perfectly working backports in git. Actually, resolving the glew situation will not affect the backports in any way -- after all, they are built against glew in trixie and bookworm. That said, I hear you. "waiting for #1136422" --alec
