Your message dated Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:51:36 +0200
with message-id <396adae9-1914-09a1-29c4-817b356e2...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#829145: transition: glibc 2.23
has caused the Debian Bug report #829145,
regarding transition: glibc 2.23
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 ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
829145: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829145
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Dear release team,
We would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.23. It is currently
available in experimental and has been built successfully on all
official architectures except hurd-i386. We have fixed the hurd-i386
failure in out git, and we are working on build failures for alpha, hppa
and sparc64. There are due to testsuite issue, mostly in the math parts
and do not look very critical.
It should be noted that this upload will make a few packages to FTBFS,
mostly due to more precise checking in the floating-point classification
macros (isnan, isinf, ...). In most of the cases the changes just make
existing bugs visible. The list of affected packages is available [1]
(thanks to Martin Michlmayr), and the bugs have been opened for more
than 3 months.
As the glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
rebuilt for this transition:
- apitrace
- bro
- dante
- libnih
- libnss-db
- unscd
Here is the corresponding ben file:
title = "glibc";
is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.24\)/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.23\)/;
In addition to that, a few new symbols have been added that might
prevent a few other packages to transition to testing if they pick up
the new symbols, namely the fts64_* and the lgamma* ones. It should not
concerns many packages.
Thanks for considering,
Aurelien
[1]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=2.23;users=debian-gl...@lists.debian.org
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 05/07/16 13:58, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 04/07/16 00:48, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On 2016-07-01 09:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>>
>>> On 01/07/16 01:41, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>>> Severity: normal
>>>> User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
>>>> Usertags: transition
>>>>
>>>> Dear release team,
>>>>
>>>> We would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.23. It is currently
>>>> available in experimental and has been built successfully on all
>>>> official architectures except hurd-i386. We have fixed the hurd-i386
>>>> failure in out git, and we are working on build failures for alpha, hppa
>>>> and sparc64. There are due to testsuite issue, mostly in the math parts
>>>> and do not look very critical.
>>>>
>>>> It should be noted that this upload will make a few packages to FTBFS,
>>>> mostly due to more precise checking in the floating-point classification
>>>> macros (isnan, isinf, ...). In most of the cases the changes just make
>>>> existing bugs visible. The list of affected packages is available [1]
>>>> (thanks to Martin Michlmayr), and the bugs have been opened for more
>>>> than 3 months.
>>>>
>>>> As the glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
>>>> said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
>>>> rebuilt for this transition:
>>>> - apitrace
>>>> - bro
>>>> - dante
>>>> - libnih
>>>> - libnss-db
>>>> - unscd
>>>>
>>>> Here is the corresponding ben file:
>>>>
>>>> title = "glibc";
>>>> is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
>>>> is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.24\)/;
>>>> is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.23\)/;
>>>>
>>>> In addition to that, a few new symbols have been added that might
>>>> prevent a few other packages to transition to testing if they pick up
>>>> the new symbols, namely the fts64_* and the lgamma* ones. It should not
>>>> concerns many packages.
>>>
>>> Go ahead.
>>
>> It has just been accepted by dak.
>
> binnmus scheduled.
This just went in. Closing.
Emilio
--- End Message ---
