[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#797074: marked as done (transition: libical2)

Your message dated Fri, 27 May 2016 00:54:58 +0200
with message-id <57477EC2.1040709@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#797074: libical2 transition now ready to start!
has caused the Debian Bug report #797074,
regarding transition: libical2
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 owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
797074: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=797074
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition


Hello.

I've already updated the libical package to a new upstream micro-release.
Given that this was a micro-release plus the following release note I
did not expect any breakage:
"Version 1.0.1 fixes some bugs and adds some small features to
version 1.0.0 while retaining binary and source compatibility."

Unfortunately this seems to not be true. While there where no
missing symbols there are apparently other ABI breakages
as reported in https://bugs.debian.org/797003

Not sure about the full reasons for the breakage but it looks to me like
it's partially caused by a debian patch to generate reproducible builds
which sorts the output of a generated enum which means new additions
ends up in the middle instead of at the end.
Will this patch cause ABI problems for every new release from now on I
wonder?!
This might not be the only reason for breakage though and I've only
quickly looked at it.....

Anyway, back to the current breakage. The last time similar breakage
was upon us, we seem to simply have renamed the package and then
rebuilt reverse dependencies.

Please advice if you'd like me to upload a new version with libical1a
renamed to libical1b and start a transition ....

Ben file:

title = "libical";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libical1a" | .depends ~ "libical1b";
is_good = .depends ~ "libical1b";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libical1a";


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.1
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 17/05/16 08:46, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 09:29:00PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> libical is already in testing.
> 
> Oh!
> 
> [...]
> 
>> From your side it's all done now, so you can stop worrying about this. :)
> 
> Great, thanks! :)

And the old library got removed from testing now, so we can close this.

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: