Bug#908345: transition: ldc / phobos 81
Am Di., 2. Okt. 2018 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort : > [...] > It'd be good if you can mark those bugs as blocking this one, so that we can > easily track what's missing to finish the transition. Sorry for the late reply, I was in an internet-.free zone for a while due to moving. I marked the issues accordingly. I will also maybe today upload a new version of LDC, which will (as always) require another transition. Fun. The appstream-generator build error is unrelated to the transition and happened due to a bug in the Meson build system, same for gir-to-d. These issues will be fixed with the next Meson release, or in case of as-generator might already be fixed. Cheers, Matthias -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Bug#908345: transition: ldc / phobos 81
Control: tags -1 confirmed pending On 13/09/2018 14:11, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Am Mo., 10. Sep. 2018 um 22:17 Uhr schrieb Niels Thykier : >> >> Matthias Klumpp: >>> Package: release.debian.org >>> Severity: normal >>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org >>> Usertags: transition >>> >>> Hi! >>> Yet another LDC ABI and standard library transition is currently going >>> on (since D does not provide a stable ABI, this happens with every >>> upload of a new LDC release). >>> >>> The Ben file that was auto-generated looks okay to me: >>> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ldc.html >>> (for some reason it switched to "!?" state recently though, likely due >>> to LDC migrating to testing before the transition was done.) >>> >>> Is it still necessary to create transition tracking bugs for correctly >>> auto-generated transitions? Or should I in that case just wait for the >>> release team to schedule bugs on their own at some point? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Matthias >>> >> >> Hi Matthias, >> >> I tried scheduling binNMUs for libundead and glib-d but they both FTBFS. >> >> Could you please review the issues and file bugs (or upload fixes) to >> resolve the situation? > > Bugs have been filed (not by me though, I was too slow...), and the > two issues that cause the rebuild failure are both upstream issues, > one unrelated to the LDC transition[1], and one[2] directly related. > I'll write again if these issues have been fixed in some way in > Debian, and another rebuild can be attempted. It'd be good if you can mark those bugs as blocking this one, so that we can easily track what's missing to finish the transition. Thanks, Emilio
Bug#908345: transition: ldc / phobos 81
Am Mo., 10. Sep. 2018 um 22:17 Uhr schrieb Niels Thykier : > > Matthias Klumpp: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: transition > > > > Hi! > > Yet another LDC ABI and standard library transition is currently going > > on (since D does not provide a stable ABI, this happens with every > > upload of a new LDC release). > > > > The Ben file that was auto-generated looks okay to me: > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ldc.html > > (for some reason it switched to "!?" state recently though, likely due > > to LDC migrating to testing before the transition was done.) > > > > Is it still necessary to create transition tracking bugs for correctly > > auto-generated transitions? Or should I in that case just wait for the > > release team to schedule bugs on their own at some point? > > > > Cheers, > > Matthias > > > > Hi Matthias, > > I tried scheduling binNMUs for libundead and glib-d but they both FTBFS. > > Could you please review the issues and file bugs (or upload fixes) to > resolve the situation? Bugs have been filed (not by me though, I was too slow...), and the two issues that cause the rebuild failure are both upstream issues, one unrelated to the LDC transition[1], and one[2] directly related. I'll write again if these issues have been fixed in some way in Debian, and another rebuild can be attempted. Cheers, Matthias [1]: https://github.com/gtkd-developers/gir-to-d/issues/19 [2]: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/2848 -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Bug#908345: transition: ldc / phobos 81
Matthias Klumpp: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Hi! > Yet another LDC ABI and standard library transition is currently going > on (since D does not provide a stable ABI, this happens with every > upload of a new LDC release). > > The Ben file that was auto-generated looks okay to me: > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ldc.html > (for some reason it switched to "!?" state recently though, likely due > to LDC migrating to testing before the transition was done.) > > Is it still necessary to create transition tracking bugs for correctly > auto-generated transitions? Or should I in that case just wait for the > release team to schedule bugs on their own at some point? > > Cheers, > Matthias > Hi Matthias, I tried scheduling binNMUs for libundead and glib-d but they both FTBFS. Could you please review the issues and file bugs (or upload fixes) to resolve the situation? Thanks, ~Niels
Bug#908345: transition: ldc / phobos 81
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hi! Yet another LDC ABI and standard library transition is currently going on (since D does not provide a stable ABI, this happens with every upload of a new LDC release). The Ben file that was auto-generated looks okay to me: https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ldc.html (for some reason it switched to "!?" state recently though, likely due to LDC migrating to testing before the transition was done.) Is it still necessary to create transition tracking bugs for correctly auto-generated transitions? Or should I in that case just wait for the release team to schedule bugs on their own at some point? Cheers, Matthias
