Re: Bug#654417: transition: glew
owner 654417 !
tags 654417 pending
On 2012-01-03 16:55, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Usertags: transition
> Dear Release Team,
Sorry for the late reply. I have setup a tracker page at .
> I'm filing this bug for the transition of glew package.
> On August 2011 the new 1.7.0 stable version has been released by
> On December 27, 2011 a testing-purpose package has been uploaded to
> experimental and with the huge help from Luca Falavigna (dktrkranz) it
> was tested building with all its 51 reverse dependencies.
> None of the packages in that list were directly affected by the
> transition (the only FTBFS is non-glew dependent).
Sounds good so far - do you know if there has been any API changes?
> My sponsor for this package, Alessio Treglia (alessio), asked me to use
> SONAME-independent -dev packages (libglew-dev and libglewmx-dev), while
> the former versions were libglew1.6-dev and libglewmx1.6-dev.
> "Provides" field has been anyway set to ease the process.
We have experienced quite a few issues with renaming -dev packages on
top of a normal library transition - even with provides (due to
versioned build-depends). Though if none of the FTBFS involve
build-dependency issues, I guess there no versioned build-dependencies
to cause issues.
However, just to be clear - if there are any FTBFS issues due to the
-dev renaming, I am expecting that the two of you will be NMU'ing
affected packages if needed.
> List of sources depending on glew following:
> * megaglest
Its FTBTS on kfreebsd in sid could stall the transition.
* gem (not in your original list)
Also FTBFS and in testing, so also a blocker.
> Thanks for your time and patience.
>  http://debomatic64.debian.net/glew/
Other than the two packages above, I think we might be good to go. Feel
free to upload the new version of glew to unstable.