Re: Status of the t64 transition

[Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de>]

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?

TIA, cu Andreas

PS: fakeroot seems to be an important blocker not in the list.