Re: Status of the t64 transition
On 2024-04-19 06:02:03 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2024-04-18 Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > Let's start with the first category. Those are packages that could be
> > binNMUed, but there are issues that make those rebuilds not have the
> > desired effect. This list include packages that
> > * are BD-Uninstallabe,
> > * FTBFS but with out ftbfs-tagged RC bug,
> > * have hard-coded dependencies on pre-t64 libraries,
> > * have $oldlib | $newlib dependencies (those are at least wrong on
> > armel/armhf and violate policy 2.2.1 once the pre-t64 libraries are
> > decrufted),
> > * have been rebuilt before all dependencies were built,
> > * have broken symbols/shlibs files producing incorrect dependencies,
> > * or might just be missing the binNMU (but those should be few).
>
> > hugin
> [...]
>
> Good morning,
>
> thanks for the update.
>
> Looking at hugin, I think it is fine on all release-architectures, none
> of the problems noted above apply here. Am I missing something?
It required rebuilds for wxwidgets3.2 on mips64el:
INFO Rebuilding src:hugin/2023.0.0+dfsg-1 (hugin) for libwxbase3.2-1 on mips64el
INFO Rebuilding src:hugin/2023.0.0+dfsg-1 (hugin-tools) for libwxbase3.2-1 on mips64el
They were scheduled last night and now hugin is fine. Thanks for double checking.
> PS: fakeroot seems to be an important blocker not in the list.
The lists in my mail only contain those packages that require changes to
their dependencies due to the library package renames. So everything on
these lists depends on foo, but should depend on foot64 [1]. fakeroot
only depends on packages that are not involved in the t64 transition.
Cheers
[1] And some other variations including previous ABI transitions such as
v5, etc:
https://github.com/sebastinas/drt-tools/blob/main/src/nmu_t64.rs#L75
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: