On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 01:29:50PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 02/12/2025 07:49, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 11:29:08AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > On 25/09/2025 11:21, Timo Röhling wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[email protected]> [2025-09-25 10:07]: > > > > > Yesterday when I read Simon's email I was going to suggest the same. > > > > > Raise the severity now, and wait a bit more for packages to be fixed, > > > > > as otherwise this may cause issues to ongoing or planned transitions. > > > > That sounds like a reasonable approach. > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can evaluate it again in one month, and hopefully get it > > > > > uploaded to sid soon. > > > > I am a bit unhappy about the fuzziness of the "hopefully soon" part, and > > > > I would prefer something more concrete that the Release Team is > > > > expecting to happen / where the priorities are. For instance, am I > > > > correct to infer from Paul's mail that dealing with key packages is more > > > > important than merely reducing the overall number of open bugs fast? > > > > > > Yes, key packages are more important in general, as it's harder to get rid > > > of those in testing if there's a need to unblock a transition. > > > > > > I think we can do it in one month if things look reasonably well, > > > otherwise > > > in two months as a hard deadline to not delay this indefinitely. Does that > > > sound reasonable? > > > > This was over 2 months ago, and the number of key packages that FTBFS > > with CMake 4 is now lower than the number that do still FTBFS with GCC 15. > > The llvm bugs worry me a little bit. Other than that, this would be good to > go.
#1113237 contains plenty of investigation from Timo, with the open question for the LLVM maintainers who know how their debian/rules machinery works. > Cheers, > Emilio cu Adrian
