Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
On 2022-03-18 09:17:57 -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:14:25PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: > > gnupg1 also has the dependency in Recommends and should be rebuilt. > > ^^^ Just wanted to re-highlight gnupg1 as it still links the old libldap. binNMU scheduled Cheers > I looked through unstable's Packages by hand to see if I missed anything > else... I found a couple of sid-only packages that didn't show up on the > tracker (lua-apr and googleearth-package both don't Build-Depend on > libldap-dev) but nothing concerning. > > Thank you, > Ryan -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
Hi Sebastian, On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:14:25PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: gnupg1 also has the dependency in Recommends and should be rebuilt. ^^^ Just wanted to re-highlight gnupg1 as it still links the old libldap. I looked through unstable's Packages by hand to see if I missed anything else... I found a couple of sid-only packages that didn't show up on the tracker (lua-apr and googleearth-package both don't Build-Depend on libldap-dev) but nothing concerning. Thank you, Ryan
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
gnupg1 also has the dependency in Recommends and should be rebuilt.
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:15:54PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
If it's really just compile-tome constants and not actual symbols, then
that it's fine.
There is one source file (SOGoLDAPUserDefaults.m) that calls ldap_
functions, but from the build log it looks like the feature isn't
enabled ("ldap-based configuration: no") and that file doesn't seem to
be compiled, so never mind.
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
On 2022-03-14 14:07:34 -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 02:00:59PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: > > sogo is probably ok. It depends on libldap-dev because it uses a couple > > of constants from , but it doesn't seem to link -lldap itself, > > instead relying on libsope1 to link it transitively. > > ... although right after I sent this, it occurred to me: does the fact the > symbols are versioned mess with this? Might have to take a closer look, but > sogo does use libldap's symbols in its code... If it's really just compile-tome constants and not actual symbols, then that it's fine. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 02:00:59PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: sogo is probably ok. It depends on libldap-dev because it uses a couple of constants from , but it doesn't seem to link -lldap itself, instead relying on libsope1 to link it transitively. ... although right after I sent this, it occurred to me: does the fact the symbols are versioned mess with this? Might have to take a closer look, but sogo does use libldap's symbols in its code...
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
collectd and monitoring-plugins should be rebuilt as well. They are showing as unknown in the tracker because they list their plugins' shlib dependencies in Suggests and Recommends respectively. Sorry it didn't occur to me to list those fields in the ben file. sogo is probably ok. It depends on libldap-dev because it uses a couple of constants from , but it doesn't seem to link -lldap itself, instead relying on libsope1 to link it transitively.
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 02:26:20PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: Please take a look at golang-openldap. It's an arch: all package and hardcodes a dependency on libldap-2.4-2 Thanks. I hadn't noticed it was hard-coded. Filed #1006456. Also examining some of the "unknown" rows in the tracker, looks like several might legitimately be unused/unneeded build-depends. Will probably file some sev:minor bugs for those later. Otherwise looks like things are going smoothly so far?
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/openldap-2.5.html On 2022-03-12 11:26:19 -0800, Ryan Tandy wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:15:31PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Please go ahead > > Thank you. openldap/2.5.11+dfsg-1 has just been accepted into unstable. > > Should I bump the remaining autopkgtest issues to RC severity at this time? > > Could you please update the ben file for the transition? The auto-generated > one is not ideal. I think it should look something like: > > is_affected = .build-depends ~ /\b(libldap(2)?\-dev|libslapi\-dev)\b/; > is_bad = .depends ~ /\b(libldap\-2\.4\-2|libslapi\-2\.4\-2)\b/; > is_good = .depends ~ /\b(libldap\-2\.5\-0|libslapi\-2\.5\-0)\b/; The tracker is now available at https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/openldap-2.5.html Please take a look at golang-openldap. It's an arch: all package and hardcodes a dependency on libldap-2.4-2 Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:15:31PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: Please go ahead Thank you. openldap/2.5.11+dfsg-1 has just been accepted into unstable. Should I bump the remaining autopkgtest issues to RC severity at this time? Could you please update the ben file for the transition? The auto-generated one is not ideal. I think it should look something like: is_affected = .build-depends ~ /\b(libldap(2)?\-dev|libslapi\-dev)\b/; is_bad = .depends ~ /\b(libldap\-2\.4\-2|libslapi\-2\.4\-2)\b/; is_good = .depends ~ /\b(libldap\-2\.5\-0|libslapi\-2\.5\-0)\b/; Thank you, Ryan
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
Control: tags -1 confirmed On 2022-02-26 19:50:47 -0800, Ryan Tandy wrote: > Wine has been fixed. I confirmed a successful build with openldap 2.5. Please go ahead Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
Wine has been fixed. I confirmed a successful build with openldap 2.5.
Bug#1006456: transition: openldap
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition X-Debbugs-Cc: pkg-openldap-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Control: block -1 by 1006016 Control: block -1 by 1005996 Control: block -1 by 990335 Control: block -1 by 989409 Dear release team, I would like to transition to OpenLDAP 2.5 for bookworm. This is my first transition, please be gentle. :) The new version is available in experimental and has built on all release architectures. I propose the following ben file: title = "openldap"; is_affected = .build-depends ~ /\b(libldap(2)?\-dev|libslapi\-dev)\b/; is_bad = .depends ~ /\b(libldap\-2\.4\-2|libslapi\-2\.4\-2)\b/; is_good = .depends ~ /\b(libldap\-2\.5\-0|libslapi\-2\.5\-0)\b/; (libslapi apparently has no rdeps currently; included anyway for completeness.) I'm currently aware of the following issues blocking the transition: Related FTBFS: wine: #1006016 (presumed; but unable to test due to #995580) wine-development: #1005996 Unrelated FTBFS: (please tell me if these should also be linked as blocking this transition bug) uwsgi: #1006119 wine: #995580 - also tried with older unicode-data, but configure failed condor: #966726 (not in testing) kopanocore: #990322 (not in testing) libaws: #997457 (not in testing) openscap: #1000279 (not in testing) sarg: #966848 (not in testing) xemacs21: #1005992 (not in testing) Related autopkgtest failures: django-ldapdb: uses volatildap (#990335) nss-pam-ldapd: #989409 volatildap: #990335 Unrelated autopkgtest failures: python-ldap: - in unstable, has no tests - in experimental, has failing tests, but not a regression (same failure with openldap from unstable) The one that concerns me the most is wine. It has multiple RC bugs but appears to also be a key package. Thank you, Ryan
