Bug#1059535: transition: abseil
- To: Benjamin Barenblat <bbaren@debian.org>, 1059535@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#1059535: transition: abseil
- From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:02:22 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] ZgatzpFtzjbrs6Ia@ramacher.at>
- Reply-to: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 1059535@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <Zc0cJKcvmjkjYLbi@ramacher.at>
- References: <170370094466.2104958.16740261741993534909.reportbug@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name> <874jeau8ri.jfx@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name> <170370094466.2104958.16740261741993534909.reportbug@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name> <Zc0cJKcvmjkjYLbi@ramacher.at> <170370094466.2104958.16740261741993534909.reportbug@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name>
Control: tags -1 confirmed
Hi Benjamin
On 2024-02-14 21:01:40 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2024-02-14 14:48:49 -0500, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> > I’d like to alter this transition request. Instead of transitioning to
> > version 20230802, I’d like to transition to version 20240116, which
> > upstream recently released.
> >
> > Is that okay? If so, I’ll upload 20240116 to experimental and reexamine
> > reverse dependencies. If not, please let me know how to proceed; a
> > 20230802 -> 20240116 upgrade would require a second transition, and I
> > don’t want to create extra work.
>
> That's okay. There is enough time to prepare a tranistion to 20240116
> until we have finished the time_t transition.
Since the version in unstable fails to build on armel and armhf and
blocks the time_t transition, but the version in experimental builds
fine, let's do this transition now.
With the upload to unstable, please check the FTBFS issue on risc64,
though. See https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=abseil&arch=riscv64&ver=20230802.1-2&stamp=1703403912&raw=0
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: