Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
This time with d-boot in CC... Forwarding to debian-boot, as requested from Cyril. Debian-Boot people, please take a look at #650601 -- the libpng16 transition which is now ready to be started. There are a few udebs affected, which is tested as described below (following a request from Cyril). IMHO also the udeb part is ready for the transition, but I'm not in the d-i topics. -- tobi On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:05:22 +0100 Tobias Frostwrote: > Hallo KiBi, > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:51:11 +0100 Cyril Brulebois > wrote: > > > Has anyone tested a debian installer build where some packages were > > built against libpng12-0-udeb and some other against libpng16-16- > udeb? > > Does that work? Or are we looking at a giant transition where > everything > > must switch to libpng16 at once? > >  > > Mraw, > > KiBi. > > As requested, I performed those build of the d-i, version 20160106: > > Testmatrix > > A libcairo2-udeb_1.14.6-1.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb > B libdirectfb-1.2-9-udeb_1.2.10.0-5.2~libpng16_amd64.udeb > C libfreetype6-udeb_2.6.1-0.2~libpng16_amd64.udeb > D libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0-udeb_2.32.3-1.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb > E libpng16-16-udeb_1.6.20-1.2~libpng16+patched+1_amd64.udeb > F matchbox-keyboard-udeb_0.1+svn20080916-10.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb > > Two more udeb packages where generated during the mass rebuild on my > server, bu removed from test-matrix, as they do not Depend: on libpng: > libslang2, libdirectfb-bin > > Key x -> libpng16-version used >     . -> standard version used > >    A B C D E F   result   (comment) > 1  . . . . . .   builds   "control group" > 2  x . x . x .   builds     > 3  . x x . x .   builds > 4  . . . x x .   builds > 5  . x . x x x   builds   > 6  x x x x x x  builds  "target version" > > > Procedure: > - debuld in debian-installer directory. > - examination of created debian-installer-images tarball, especially > the MANIFEST.udebs file for installed udebs (if matches expectations, > if both libpngs are present > > > Let me know if you want to see other combinations tested too (and > which) > > Thanks > -- > tobi > >
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
Forwarding to debian-boot, as requested from Cyril. Debian-Boot people, please take a look at #650601 -- the libpng16 transition which is now ready to be started. There are a few udebs affected, which is tested as described below (following a request from Cyril). IMHO also the udeb part is ready for the transition, but I'm not in the d-i topics. -- tobi On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:05:22 +0100 Tobias Frostwrote: > Hallo KiBi, > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:51:11 +0100 Cyril Brulebois > wrote: > > > Has anyone tested a debian installer build where some packages were > > built against libpng12-0-udeb and some other against libpng16-16- > udeb? > > Does that work? Or are we looking at a giant transition where > everything > > must switch to libpng16 at once? > > > > Mraw, > > KiBi. > > As requested, I performed those build of the d-i, version 20160106: > > Testmatrix > > A libcairo2-udeb_1.14.6-1.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb > B libdirectfb-1.2-9-udeb_1.2.10.0-5.2~libpng16_amd64.udeb > C libfreetype6-udeb_2.6.1-0.2~libpng16_amd64.udeb > D libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0-udeb_2.32.3-1.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb > E libpng16-16-udeb_1.6.20-1.2~libpng16+patched+1_amd64.udeb > F matchbox-keyboard-udeb_0.1+svn20080916-10.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb > > Two more udeb packages where generated during the mass rebuild on my > server, bu removed from test-matrix, as they do not Depend: on libpng: > libslang2, libdirectfb-bin > > Key x -> libpng16-version used >     . -> standard version used > >    A B C D E F   result   (comment) > 1  . . . . . .   builds   "control group" > 2  x . x . x .   builds     > 3  . x x . x .   builds > 4  . . . x x .   builds > 5  . x . x x x   builds   > 6  x x x x x x  builds  "target version" > > > Procedure: > - debuld in debian-installer directory. > - examination of created debian-installer-images tarball, especially > the MANIFEST.udebs file for installed udebs (if matches expectations, > if both libpngs are present > > > Let me know if you want to see other combinations tested too (and > which) > > Thanks > -- > tobi > >
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
Tobias Frost(2016-01-25): > Dear release-team, > > Now that all NMUs are in DELAYED for all fixables. > I think we are ready to throw the switch. You haven't answered <20160106232316.ga28...@mraw.org>. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar(2016-01-26): > On Tue, 2016-01-26 10:23:13 +0100, Tobias Frost wrote: > > this is a question for you: > > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/01/msg00248.html > > > > {quote} > > Speaking of this particular udeb, I've just spotted libpng16-16-udeb has > > a Conflicts against libpng12-0-udeb. I'm not sure why, and the changelog > > doesn't seem to explain either. libpng16-16 and libpng12-0 seems to be > > co-installable, so I'm not sure why their respective udebs shouldn't be. > > {/quote} > > The Conflicts against libpng12-0-udeb can be removed. Looks fair on principle, thanks. Has anyone tested a debian installer build where some packages were built against libpng12-0-udeb and some other against libpng16-16-udeb? Does that work? Or are we looking at a giant transition where everything must switch to libpng16 at once? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
On Tue, 2016-01-26 10:23:13 +0100, Tobias Frost wrote: >> Tobias Frost(2016-01-25): >>> Dear release-team, >>> >>> Now that all NMUs are in DELAYED for all fixables. >>> I think we are ready to throw the switch. >> >> You haven't answered <20160106232316.ga28...@mraw.org>. >> >> Mraw, >> KiBi. >> > > Nobuhiro, Anibal, > > this is a question for you: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/01/msg00248.html > > {quote} > Speaking of this particular udeb, I've just spotted libpng16-16-udeb has > a Conflicts against libpng12-0-udeb. I'm not sure why, and the changelog > doesn't seem to explain either. libpng16-16 and libpng12-0 seems to be > co-installable, so I'm not sure why their respective udebs shouldn't be. > {/quote} The Conflicts against libpng12-0-udeb can be removed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
> Tobias Frost(2016-01-25): >> Dear release-team, >> >> Now that all NMUs are in DELAYED for all fixables. >> I think we are ready to throw the switch. > > You haven't answered <20160106232316.ga28...@mraw.org>. > > Mraw, > KiBi. > Nobuhiro, Anibal, this is a question for you: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/01/msg00248.html {quote} Speaking of this particular udeb, I've just spotted libpng16-16-udeb has a Conflicts against libpng12-0-udeb. I'm not sure why, and the changelog doesn't seem to explain either. libpng16-16 and libpng12-0 seems to be co-installable, so I'm not sure why their respective udebs shouldn't be. {/quote}
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
Hallo KiBi, On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:51:11 +0100 Cyril Bruleboiswrote: > Has anyone tested a debian installer build where some packages were > built against libpng12-0-udeb and some other against libpng16-16- udeb? > Does that work? Or are we looking at a giant transition where everything > must switch to libpng16 at once? > > Mraw, > KiBi. As requested, I performed those build of the d-i, version 20160106: Testmatrix A libcairo2-udeb_1.14.6-1.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb B libdirectfb-1.2-9-udeb_1.2.10.0-5.2~libpng16_amd64.udeb C libfreetype6-udeb_2.6.1-0.2~libpng16_amd64.udeb D libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0-udeb_2.32.3-1.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb E libpng16-16-udeb_1.6.20-1.2~libpng16+patched+1_amd64.udeb F matchbox-keyboard-udeb_0.1+svn20080916-10.1~libpng16_amd64.udeb Two more udeb packages where generated during the mass rebuild on my server, bu removed from test-matrix, as they do not Depend: on libpng: libslang2, libdirectfb-bin Key x -> libpng16-version used . -> standard version used A B C D E F result (comment) 1 . . . . . . builds "control group" 2 x . x . x . builds 3 . x x . x . builds 4 . . . x x . builds 5 . x . x x x builds 6 x x x x x x builds "target version" Procedure: - debuld in debian-installer directory. - examination of created debian-installer-images tarball, especially the MANIFEST.udebs file for installed udebs (if matches expectations, if both libpngs are present Let me know if you want to see other combinations tested too (and which) Thanks -- tobi
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
Am Dienstag, den 26.01.2016, 20:45 +1100 schrieb Aníbal Monsalve Salazar: > On Tue, 2016-01-26 10:23:13 +0100, Tobias Frost wrote: > > > Tobias Frost(2016-01-25): > > > > Dear release-team, > > > > > > > > Now that all NMUs are in DELAYED for all fixables. > > > > I think we are ready to throw the switch. > > > > > > You haven't answered <20160106232316.ga28...@mraw.org>. > > > > > > Mraw, > > > KiBi. > > > > > > > Nobuhiro, Anibal, > > > > this is a question for you: > > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/01/msg00248.html > > > > {quote} > > Speaking of this particular udeb, I've just spotted libpng16-16- > > udeb has > > a Conflicts against libpng12-0-udeb. I'm not sure why, and the > > changelog > > doesn't seem to explain either. libpng16-16 and libpng12-0 seems to > > be > > co-installable, so I'm not sure why their respective udebs > > shouldn't be. > > {/quote} > > The Conflicts against libpng12-0-udeb can be removed. Hi Anibal, OK to NMU that or do you want to do the upload yourself? diff -Nru libpng1.6-1.6.20/debian/changelog libpng1.6- 1.6.20/debian/changelog --- libpng1.6-1.6.20/debian/changelog 2016-01-24 11:26:12.0 +0100 +++ libpng1.6-1.6.20/debian/changelog 2016-01-26 22:28:29.0 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +libpng1.6 (1.6.20-1.2) unstable; urgency=medium + + * Non-maintainer upload. + * libpng16-16-udeb should not Conflicts: libpng-12-0 + + -- Tobias Frost Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:27:21 +0100 + libpng1.6 (1.6.20-1.1) experimental; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. diff -Nru libpng1.6-1.6.20/debian/control libpng1.6- 1.6.20/debian/control --- libpng1.6-1.6.20/debian/control 2016-01-24 11:29:17.0 +0100 +++ libpng1.6-1.6.20/debian/control 2016-01-26 22:28:22.0 +0100 @@ -71,7 +71,6 @@ Priority: extra Architecture: any Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends} -Conflicts: libpng12-0-udeb Description: PNG library - minimal runtime library (version 1.6) libpng is a library implementing an interface for reading and writing PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format files.
Bug#650601: libpng is ready for transtion
Dear release-team, Now that all NMUs are in DELAYED for all fixables. I think we are ready to throw the switch. Please let us know and assign us the transition slot :) Please assign a slot. Here's the actual summary [1] Built: 474 Failed: 34 OK: 440 The failed ones split up as follow: NMUs: 12 Patches: 2 RC Buggy: 13 RC as B-D: 4 RM: 2 (my package: 1) - The NMUs are uploaded, waiting to enter the archives. - Also Gianfranco uploaded tons of packages to update the B-D to libpng-dev. - The two patches are submitted to the BTS with a review request. A NMU will follow... - The RC Buggy packages are not building in sid as well, no way to check them without fixing them. - 4 Packages B-D on libvigraimpex, which is one of the RC packages. - 2 packages are to be removed - 1 package is mine, fix in prepration (rbdoom3bfg) Details: NMU in DELAYED - 12 == antigrav autotrace ctsim exult freeimage pngnq literki libtwin nagios3 openlayer scorched3d xaos Patch available (review requested): 2 netpbm-free ghostscript RC-Buggy in sid: - 13 blender calligra caret criticalmass fw4spl libvigraimpex odin openvrml libtk-img root-system wine-development xemacs21 yt reverse B-Ds libvigraimpex: - 4 === 3depict enblend-enfuse gamera hugin RM or RM requested: - 2 === exrtools celestia the remaining: === rbdoom3bfg is my package, a patch is almost ready. [1] http://libpng.sviech.de/!summary.txt The file in the link will be updated as I rebuild package when uploads have been done; (manual process) -- tobi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part