Control: tags -1 confirmed On 2022-09-18 10:11:58 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.35.html > > On 2022-09-14 22:17:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: [email protected] > > Usertags: transition > > X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected] > > > > Dear release team, > > > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.35. It has been > > available in experimental for one month and does not have any known > > major issue. It has been built successfully on all release architectures > > and many ports architectures. A few issues found through the autopkgtest > > pseudo excuses for experimental have been fixed. The remaining ones are > > due to britney bugs, broken autopkgtest or packages parts of the > > transition. > > > > 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. Here is the corresponding ben file: > > > > title = "glibc"; > > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</; > > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.36\)/; > > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.35\)/; > > > > 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 and > > mostly linked to the new math functions introduced for ISO C2x support, > > so unlikely to be massively used by default. Therefore overall this > > transition should be way simpler than the glibc 2.34 one. > > > > Thanks for considering. > > Let's start with this one after the udeb block is lifted and the D-I > alpha is done.
The udeb block was lifted. Please go ahead. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
