Re: glibc 2.32 packaging
Hi Balint,
On 2020-08-14 17:13, Balint Reczey wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 11:26 AM Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2020-08-14 00:18, Balint Reczey wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I plan landing 2.32 in Ubuntu in the next weeks and I'd happily
> > > contribute to the Debian packaging as well.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > The Ubuntu packaging repository is at:
> > > https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+git/glibc
> > >
> > > There is a also staging one with WIP branches:
> > > https://code.launchpad.net/~rbalint/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+git/glibc
> >
> > Before starting packaging 2.32, we need to do the nsl and rpc
> > transitions, that's why nothing has been started on 2.32 yet. I think
> > that has to be done in 2 steps:
> > - nsl transition: packaging libnsl [1] and libnss-nis [2] and build
> > glibc without --enable-obsolete-nsl. I have started working on libnsl,
> > but unfortunately all rdeps don't build. I have stopped working on
> > that this week, I think I'll find some time to work on that next
> > week, then I'll push my work to git.
> > - rpc transition: we need to package rpcsvc-proto and build without
> > --enable-obsolete-rpc. I have also starting working on that, but then
> > realized we have to take care of nsl first.
>
> I agree that splitting the tasks ahead to three steps minimizes impact
> at any given during the transitions but also makes the overall impact
> staying with us longer. In Ubuntu we would like to have 2.32 in 20.10,
> thus I'm aiming at doing the transition with the 2.32 switch.
> If you have WIP packages you would be kind enough to share them on
> Salsa I'd happily help with those, too. Otherwise I'll need to go
> ahead and package them from scratch, too, to start testing the
> transition in a PPA.
Ok. I have finished with the libnsl and libnss-nis* packages, they are
on salsa in the glibc-team. I'll now try again to rebuild all rdeps and
if everything works, I'll upload them to experimental.
> > > On Salsa there is no branch yet for 2.32 as I see and I'm wondering if
> > > there is a git repository which accepts merge proposals.
> > >
> > > I think setting up CI on Salsa would also be useful, at least I use it
> > > for most of my packages.
> >
> > We haven't enabled MR on salsa as nobody really monitors it and we don't
> > want things to bitrot there. We can enable it, but it should not become
> > a duplication of the BTS.
>
> I'd happily open MRs and open bugs referring to them as the proposed patches.
>
> I've forked the glibc repository but I can't enable CI for my fork
> presumably because it is not enabled in the original repo either.
> Could you please enable CI setting the configuration file to
> debian/gitlab-ci.yml or something else under debian/ ? This should not
> impact the main repo since the config file is not present but would
> let me experiment in my fork.
I have enabled MR and CI in the glibc project.
> > > Aurelien, I'd also be interested in the rpcsvc-proto package you
> > > mentioned earlier [1] and I'd start maintaining it if Josue is not
> > > interested immediately.
> >
> > Let's wait a bit from a possible answer from Josue given it's a holiday
> > period.
>
> I'll happily hand over the packages to Josue if he is interested, but
> next week I need to start testing the rpcsvc-proto package and if you
> could share the initial packaging that would help a bit and would not
> harm anyone I think .
We don't need a maintainer for now, the package should not be in the
archive until we are ready for the transition as it basically conflicts
with libc6-dev.
Now that I am done with the libnsl and libnss-nis* packages, I'll finish
the rpcsvc-proto packaging, and I'll push it to salsa the same way.
Regards,
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: