On 2016-07-01 09:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Control: tags -1 confirmed > > On 01/07/16 01:41, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: transition > > > > Dear release team, > > > > We would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.23. It is currently > > available in experimental and has been built successfully on all > > official architectures except hurd-i386. We have fixed the hurd-i386 > > failure in out git, and we are working on build failures for alpha, hppa > > and sparc64. There are due to testsuite issue, mostly in the math parts > > and do not look very critical. > > > > It should be noted that this upload will make a few packages to FTBFS, > > mostly due to more precise checking in the floating-point classification > > macros (isnan, isinf, ...). In most of the cases the changes just make > > existing bugs visible. The list of affected packages is available [1] > > (thanks to Martin Michlmayr), and the bugs have been opened for more > > than 3 months. > > > > As the glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That > > said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be > > rebuilt for this transition: > > - apitrace > > - bro > > - dante > > - libnih > > - libnss-db > > - unscd > > > > Here is the corresponding ben file: > > > > title = "glibc"; > > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</; > > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.24\)/; > > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.23\)/; > > > > In addition to that, a few new symbols have been added that might > > prevent a few other packages to transition to testing if they pick up > > the new symbols, namely the fts64_* and the lgamma* ones. It should not > > concerns many packages. > > Go ahead.
It has just been accepted by dak. Cheers, Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net