Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.36.html Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 2022-10-27 21:36:11 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org > > Dear release team, > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.36. It has been > available in experimental for a bit more than one month and does not > have any known major issue. It has been built successfully on all > release architectures and many ports architectures. A few issues found > through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for experimental have been fixed. > The remaining ones are due to britney bugs, broken autopkgtest or > packages parts of the transition. > > As 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. Here is the corresponding ben file: > > title = "glibc"; > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</; > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.37\)/; > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.36\)/; > > In addition a few new symbols have been added that might prevent a few > other packages to migrate to testing until glibc migrates if they pick > up the new symbols, however those are really limited in this version and > mostly linked to new filesystem, processes or random functions, so > unlikely to be massively used by default. > > Note that this version builds with GCC 12 instead of GCC 11, so it is a > prerequisite for not shipping bookworm with GCC 11. Speaking of GCC 12 … #1022991 seems to have a first patch available upstream. Is there any chance that we could start this transition together with a fix for that bug? Cheers > > Thanks for considering. > > Regards, > Aurelien > -- Sebastian Ramacher
