On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 21:03:41 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 18:20 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On 2014-02-06 21:20, Adam Conrad wrote:
> > > Requestion a transition slot to upload eglibc 2.18 to unstable.
> > > The number of rdeps with an exact glibc dependency (due to using
> > > internal symbols) is quite low, and should all be binNMUable.
> >
> > Assuming that all we're expecting to be involved is the binNMUs, please
> > go ahead (i.e. there aren't a bunch of "FTBFS against eglibc 2.18" bugs
> > hiding up your sleeve somewhere :-).
>
> The binNMUs are all scheduled and have mostly built now; we're just
> waiting for mipsel to chew through a few large packages which all seem
> to have got picked up at the same time.
>
> One problem is libnih's FTBFS on i386 - #739913.
>
there's now a couple of RC upgrade bugs against new libc, status update
from Aurelien:
< jcristau> aurel32: what's the status of libc 2.18?
< aurel32> jcristau: i am still working on it, doing builds and upgrade
tests
< aurel32> i hope to have something today
Cheers,
Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature