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

Bug#631018: marked as done ([RFC] libevent 2.0 transition)



Your message dated Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:14:51 +0100
with message-id <20111220221451.GD24471@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#631018: [RFC] libevent 2.0 transition
has caused the Debian Bug report #631018,
regarding [RFC] libevent 2.0 transition
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
631018: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=631018
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

On 06/19/2011 04:30 PM, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
[please CC]


Please subscribe to this (being filed) bugreport.

Hi,

I uploaded a new version of libevent to experimental which I'd like to migrate
to unstable as soon as possible. Since I'm the new guy helping out with libevent
and since this would be my first "bigish" transition, I'd like to run it by the
release team to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.

The new version is a jump from the 1.* series to the 2.* series, which certainly
breaks the ABI, but shouldn't break the API for most cases. However, since
libevent exposes a relatively big number of internal structures in the headers,
there are ways to abuse the API in non-compatible ways.

I've rebuild all reverse-build-deps against the new version and only 7 from the
32 fail to build (more details below).
Now I intended to write to -devel with all affected maintainers CC'd, requesting
further testing and input and after all have ack'd the problems and have
solutions in place, I'd go ahead with the upload to unstable.
Does this sound like a reasonable plan? Did I miss something important?


About the FTBFSs:
beanstalkd: syntax error; maybe using some changed define?
ladvd: builds correctly, fails on 1 of 6 tests ("HTTP request failed")
forked-daapd: includes event-config.h, which has been moved to
event2/event-config.h (I could provide a compat-symlink)
python-event: bona fide build failure (I couldn't grok the underlying reason
just by looking at the log)
memcached: ditto
lua-event: ditto
honeyd: doesn't seem related (configure: error: Couldn't figure out how to
access libc)


Cheers

--
Leo "costela" Antunes
[insert a witty retort here]


--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:14:07 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:

> > - honeyd: #632765
> 
> #651463
> 
> > - ladvd: #650670
> 
> Still unfixed.
> 
> > - python-event: #632763
> 
> Still unfixed.
> 
The above 3 packages are removed from testing.

> > - gearmand: #650825
> 
> Still unfixed.
> 
And I'll remove this one and mod-gearman tomorrow, so this is
essentially done, closing.

Cheers,
Julien


--- End Message ---

Reply to: