On 07/13/2015 02:19 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 13/07/15 14:15, Alastair McKinstry wrote: >> >> >> On 13/07/2015 12:50, sebastic wrote: >>> On 2015-07-13 13:40, Alastair McKinstry wrote: >>>> So, whats the current status of the netCDF transition? >>> >>> We still need to verify all reverse dependencies before we can request >> a transition slot. >>> >> Ok, I'll start with my packages then. Experimental builds. >>>> What about collisions with the gcc-5 transition? >>> >>> The GCC-5 related transitions are going to be painful, that's why I >> hope to get the gdal & spatialite transitions done before GCC-5, but it >> seems unlikely. >>> >> Yes. This gets confusing. >> >> I have a package libdap, upon which gdal depends. Its just undergone a >> transition 3.12 -> 3.14.0 that included SONAME changes. It has two >> rdepends, gdal and grads. I had set an RC bug against libdap to block > > No. There was no RC bug at all. > >> it from transitioning until g++-5 transition (as it has c++11 symbol >> changes) but its been removed and libdap 3.14.0 has transitioned. >> gdal has been binNMU'd and will transition. > > Right. > >> So what happens? Does testing get rebuilt with g++-5 ? (unlikely, but a >> good idea, I think), > > Not going to happen. > >> or is another transition necessary for >> libdapclient6 -> libdapclient6v5 with the g++ transition? > > You need another transition if the ABI changes with the new libstdc++.
yes, there are a few packages which need both the libstdc++ and the gfortran module transition (for now I see slepc and metview). So I would prefer if you could wait until after that one. Btw, I'm still looking for somebody who wants to handle the gfortran module transition ... Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
