On 2020-03-11 09:44, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.30.html > Control: tags -1 confirmed > > Hi Aurelien, > > On 08/02/2020 10:16, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: [email protected] > > Usertags: transition > > > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: [email protected] > > Usertags: transition > > > > Dear release team, > > > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.30. It is available in > > experimental for 2 months and there are no known issues or regression. > > It has been built successfully on all release architectures and most > > ports architectures. It fails to build on hurd-i386 but it is already > > fixed in git. It also fails to build on alpha, ia64 and sparc64 due > > to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are > > similar to existing failures in version 2.29. It doesn't build on > > kfreebsd-*, but this has been the case for a few glibc releases already. > > > > 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 (some packages only on some architectures): > > - apitrace > > - bro > > - dante > > - gcc-9 > > - gcc-10 > > - gcc-snapshot > > - libnih > > - libnss-db > > - unscd > > > > Ben file: > > > > Here is the corresponding ben file: > > title = "glibc"; > > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</; > > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/; > > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.30\)/; > > > > 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. > > Sorry for the delay. Please go ahead.
Thanks, I have just uploaded it. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net
