Hi Salvatore, On 2026-09-12 20:58, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Aurelien, > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 03:31:31PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2026-08-26 20:59, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 2026-08-26 09:59, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 01:46:45PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Chromium has been carrying patches to make it work with > > > > > llvm-toolchain-19, > > > > > and I've uploaded llvm-toolchain-22 to stable-proposed-updates (and > > > > > pochu > > > > > already uploaded llvm-toolchain-22 to oldstable-pu and > > > > > oldoldstable-pu) in > > > > > order to be able to drop those patches as well as use a newer rustc. I > > > > > didn't realize (mea culpa) that I needed to ask for an exception from > > > > > the > > > > > wanna-build team in order to have security buildds use packages from > > > > > s-pu. > > > > > Can we please have an exception for llvm-toolchain-22 in s-pu for the > > > > > security buildds? llvm-toolchain-22 only supports static linking, so > > > > > anything that builds against it shouldn't end up with any binary > > > > > package > > > > > dependencies on libc++1(-19/-22) or anything like that. > > > > > > > > > > Note that I have a pending security update (151.0.7922.173-1~deb13u1) > > > > > that > > > > > was already uploading and build-deps on llvm-toolchain-22. The > > > > > equivalent > > > > > bookworm-security (deb12u1) release already built, but the > > > > > trixie-security > > > > > version is still being given back on the security buildds due to lack > > > > > of > > > > > llvm-toolchain-22. So there is a bit of urgency in getting either an > > > > > ACK or > > > > > NACK to this request. > > > > > > > > We are not sure if that felt through the cracks, and excuse if the > > > > ping follows too shortly (I realize it is only two days passing). > > > > > > > > I see two options, eithr stable-proposed-updates is enabled for > > > > security builds temporarily until chromium is done (I guess we should > > > > not have it longer, vs. as we discussed for -updates). > > > > > > I have just done the change to enable stable-proposed-updates for > > > security builds in the buildd configuration (pending puppet > > > propagation). Sorry for the delay. > > > > Now that the 13.7 point release is out, do we still need this change or > > can it be reverted? > > Please revert it for now, so that we do not accidentially pick up a > dependency from stable-proposed-updates.
Thanks for the feedback, I reverted it. Regards Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://aurel32.net
