Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.25.html Control: tags -1 confirmed
Hi Aurelien, On 15/11/17 21:27, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Dear release team, > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.25. It is available > in experimental for more than two months, and there is no known > regression. It is currently available in experimental and has been built > successfully on all official architectures. For the debian-ports > architectures the situation is not good as it this version has never > been built successfully on alpha and powerpcspe. That said that can be > fixed later and I don't think we should block the transition on that. > > 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 > - p11-kit > - unscd > > Here is the corresponding ben file: > title = "glibc"; > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</; > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.26\)/; > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.25\)/; > > 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. Most of them are libm.so to add support for > TS 18661-1:2014 math functions, but are currently unlikely to be picked > up by some packages. On the libc.so side, the explicit_bzero, > gententropy and getrandom might be picked up by a few packages. Let's do this. Cheers, Emilio