On 2018-03-03 10:36, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.27.html > Control: tags -1 confirmed > > Hi Aurelien, > > On 03/03/18 10:21, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: [email protected] > > Usertags: transition > > > > Dear release team, > > > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.27. It is available in > > experimental for one month, and there is no known regression. It has > > been built successfully on all release architectures, and most other > > architectures besides kfreebsd-* which do not have build daemons > > anymore. The failure on alpha and sparc64 are fixed by patches currently > > being reviewed by upstream, and that will be included in the next upload. > > > > An archive rebuild has been done to find FTBFS caused by this new > > version. The corresponding bugs have been filled. Most of them have a > > patch or have been closed. You can find the list there: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=2.27;[email protected] > > > > 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.]* \(<< 2.28\)/; > > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.27\)/; > > > > 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. I guess the most used ones are copy_file_range and > > memfd_create. > > > > Thanks for considering > > Please go ahead.
Thanks for the quick answer, I have just uploaded it. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net
