Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

[Paul Gevers]

Hi Cyril

On 20-05-2021 08:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in
> the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice…

I'm terribly sorry, but I thought we discussed migrating udeb generating
packages recently on IRC #d-release. I now realize that's a bit longer
ago than I though. To quote you:

[00:00:00] - {Day changed to Monday, 26 April 2021}
[22:06:17]  looks to me we have enough to fix and/or to debug on
our plate that we won't be issuing another RC in a week or so, so
freezing everyone (keeping everyone frozen) will only generate more
requests for acks; at this stage, it's likely easier to let stuff
migrate and deal with consequences afterward

I interpreted that as you are sort of fine at this moment if we migrated
the packages if they are otherwise fine. We should have agreed on a
schedule and it was on my TODO list to ask you today.

Additional note: glibc is on the list of build-essentials [1], so,
according to our freeze policy [2] it would have needed a pre-approval
already.

Paul

[1] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/essential-and-build-essential.txt
[2] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html#transition



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi,

Aurelien Jarno  (2021-05-18):
> [ Risks ]
> The fixes related to the testsuite involves many changes to our build
> system, by letting the upstream makefiles to install the ld.so symlink
> instead of doing it in the Debian makefiles, in an architecture specific
> way for bi/tri-arch packages. While the changes might look risky at a
> first glance, they do not change the code in the binaries, but only the
> ld.so symlinks and the libc.so linker scripts. Those have been verified
> manually on the packages built by glibc and cross-toolchain-base.
> 
> [ Checklist ]
>   [x] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
>   [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
>   [x] attach debdiff against the package in testing

No objection, thanks.

Just to be on the safe side, I've built a netboot-gtk image against
unstable's udebs and run a few installation and rescue tests, using
various languages and I haven't noticed anything worrisome.


And since I was wondering what the change was for the German debconf
template, running `d` told me the package has migrated already, and
it was indeed already unblock(-udeb)'ed…

Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in
the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice…


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature