Helmut Grohne <[email protected]> writes: > Source: tar > Version: 1.35+dfsg-3.1 > Severity: serious > Tags: ftbfs upstream fixed-upstream > X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected] > > Hi, > > tar fails to build from source in unstable, because some of its > functions clash with the function namespace of acl and the latter > recently added new symbols. tar needs to rename its own and indeed did > so upstream already. > > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/acl-devel/2026-06/msg00000.html > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2026-06/msg00013.html > > Please upload a new upstream version or cherry-pick the patch.
Hi I took the upstream git commit that fixes the FTBFS, made it apply to what Debian ships, and uploaded 1.35+dfsg-5 into DELAYED/7. Salsa pipeline confirming FTBFS with 1.35+dfsg-4: https://salsa.debian.org/jas/tar/-/pipelines/1140780 Salsa pipeline for 1.35+dfsg-5: https://salsa.debian.org/jas/tar/-/pipelines/1140782 Salsa merge request here: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tar/-/merge_requests/9 If I should cancel the DELAYED upload, or make an immediate upload sooner, please let me know. If the upload hits the archive, I plan to push the commit to the Salsa tar repository (hoping Salsa git hasn't been modified meanwhile). I volunteer to make other improvements to the packaging of 'tar' too, if you need help with this. There is a number of lintian complaints, that appear valid, which ought to be fixed. /Simon PS. I wonder how 'acl' 2.4.0-1 made it into testing, shouldn't debci/autopkg testing migration have caught this FTBFS problem in reverse build dependency testing?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
