Your message dated Wed, 18 Feb 2026 09:39:16 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1127052: transition: dune-common (Mini-transition DUNE)
has caused the Debian Bug report #1127052,
regarding transition: dune-common (Mini-transition DUNE)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1127052: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1127052
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Control: affects -1 + src:dune-common
Dear Debian release team,
A new upstream release of DUNE is available. To ease migration to testing I am
requesting a mini-transition. Uploading to unstable would probably work even
without a transition, but I would like to play it safe.
This should only affect the dune-* and opm-* source packages dune-geometry,
dune-grid
dune-uggrid, dune-localfunctions, dune-typetree, dune-grid-glue, dune-
functions,
opm-common, opm-grid, opm-simulators and opm-upscaling. I am maintaining all of
those.
I have already uploaded new versions of the dune-* packages to experimental
that seemed
to have built without any issues and are all marked for migration, see [1]. On
my system
I was able to build the opm-* packages in a chroot using the dune-* packages
without
problems and only had to patch opm-simulators
Note the package is currently not following the common practice of matching the
package name
with the SONAME as upstream does not care about API changes and always changes
the SONAME for
every release. Also see [2]
Ben file:
title = "dune-common";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libdune-common-2.10.0" | .depends ~ "libdune-
common-2.11.0";
is_good = .depends ~ "libdune-common-2.11.0";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libdune-common-2.10.0";
notes = "https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2023/01/msg00001.html";;;
export = false;
Best,
Markus Blatt
[1] https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=markus%40dr-blatt.de
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2023/01/msg00001.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 17/02/2026 09:16, Markus Blatt wrote:
HI Emilio,
Am Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 01:41:11PM +0100 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
Go ahead.
Thanks a lot.
According to the tracker [1] it seems like everything including reverse
dependencies
has built successfully.
Currently, migration to testing seems to be blocked by opm-simulators. The
excuse [2] is
that we are waiting for tests on riscv64 that have been triggered.
I am not an expert, but the CI logs seem to indicate that these test have run
successfully
on February 14, see [3]. Could it be that this is somehow not picked up by
britney?
There is also no pending test listed in [4]
Yes, there was an issue with tests from the 14th. I retriggered that one test
and dune has migrated. Thus closing.
Cheers,
Emilio
--- End Message ---
