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

Re: glibc and abi-compliance-checker break multiple KDE autopkgtests


On 06-09-18 16:39, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Does this mean that libc++-8-dev is breaking the ABI of the Qt/KDE
>>> packages? Luckily libc++-8-dev will not migrate to testing due to
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/714686 Does it need a "Breaks" then?
>> Actually due to a bug in the migration process this package migrated to
>> testing on 2018-08-26 despite the RC bug. It has been removed from
>> testing during last night.
>>> Does anybody know why libc++-8-dev is installed when glibc or
>>> abi-compliance-checker come from unstable? It seems that package is
>>> providing something that in testing is provided by libc++-dev (Or
>>> somewhere else in the dependency chain this goes "wrong" and leads to
>>> this outcome).
>> I have been able to install libc++-dev along glibc 2.27-6, so I wonder
>> if it is not just a matter of regenerating the testing chroot following
>> the libc++-8-dev removal from testing.
> the containers on ci.debian.net are recreated from scratch once a day,
> so this should solve itsef, I guess?

I don't know. In the failing cases, libc++-8-dev was installed from
unstable, not from testing:
Get:2 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 libc++abi1-8
amd64 1:8~svn340819-1 [81.3 kB]
Get:3 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 libc++1-8 amd64
1:8~svn340819-1 [214 kB]
Get:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 libc++-8-helpers
all 1:8~svn340819-1 [28.3 kB]
Get:5 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 libc++-8-dev
amd64 1:8~svn340819-1 [1,473 kB]

So it seems they are requested by something, and because the are not
available in testing, apt-get is not limited by our pinning to take them
from unstable. I believe it must be a "Provides" of some sort. What I
want to know (and I will spend some time on it) is what in the
dependency chain makes us end up with this as an option.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: