Bug#1022926: transition: glibc 2.36
On 2022-10-30 17:10, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.36.html
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> On 2022-10-27 21:36:11 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-glibc@lists.debian.org
> >
> > Dear release team,
> >
> > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.36. It has been
> > available in experimental for a bit more than one month and does not
> > have any known major issue. It has been built successfully on all
> > release architectures and many ports architectures. A few issues found
> > through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for experimental have been fixed.
> > The remaining ones are due to britney bugs, broken autopkgtest or
> > packages parts of the transition.
> >
> > As 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. Here is the corresponding ben file:
> >
> > title = "glibc";
> > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
> > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.37\)/;
> > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.36\)/;
> >
> > In addition a few new symbols have been added that might prevent a few
> > other packages to migrate to testing until glibc migrates if they pick
> > up the new symbols, however those are really limited in this version and
> > mostly linked to new filesystem, processes or random functions, so
> > unlikely to be massively used by default.
> >
> > Note that this version builds with GCC 12 instead of GCC 11, so it is a
> > prerequisite for not shipping bookworm with GCC 11.
>
> Speaking of GCC 12 … #1022991 seems to have a first patch available
> upstream. Is there any chance that we could start this transition
> together with a fix for that bug?
I would not say we have patch yet. I posted a first patch on the mailing
list yesterday [1], and we have two epidermic answers from both sides
("Why this patch is approved?" or "So MIPS ABI idiocrasies strike
again"). One come with a proposal and another one with a partial patch.
So that's 3 different options in total. I am also worried that the
problem could be more widespread as there is a claim that clock_adjtime
is broken on all 64bit system.
So IMHO, we should just wait that things calm done, and that people
really try to understand the problem, its consequences and how to fix
it, instead of just proposing random patches.
But once we have something acceptable, I am find including it either in
a 2.35 upload or a 2.36 one, both are fine to me.
Regards
Aurelien
[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-October/143049.html
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: