Re: Testing promotion of libunwind
On 2014-02-02 02:27, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 08:01 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On 2014-02-01 02:36, Daigo Moriwaki wrote:
>>> Hi team,
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Until yesterday, it was not possible for us to move forward with the
>> libunwind transition. We have been forced to ask maintainers of reverse
>> dependencies to keep using libunwind7-dev to ensure their packages could
>> migrate to testing. Therefore, there are still some uses of
>> libunwind7{,-dev} that we need to clean up before libunwind can migrate.
>> To my knowledge that includes at least:
>>
>> """
>> gcc-3.3: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-1)
>
> There is no such dependency in the version in testing.
>
>> gcc-4.4: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gcc-4.6: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gcc-4.7: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gcc-4.8: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gcc-snapshot: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gcj-4.6: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gdb: libunwind7-dev
>> gdb-msp430: libunwind7-dev
>> gnat-4.4: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gnat-4.6: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>> gnat-4.8: libunwind7-dev (>= 0.98.5-6)
>
> These build-depend on libunwind7-dev only on ia64.
>
Indeed, I got tricked by dak saying there was, but it is a "[ia64]"-only
dependency. Though gdb-msp430 seems to depend on libunwind8-dev - not
sure how I got that on the list.
>> julia: libunwind7-dev
>
> Has already been updated.
>
Yes, the maintainer was kind enough to mail Daigo and I when that happened.
>> linux-tools: libunwind7-dev
>> """
>>
>> I have CC'ed the relevant maintainers,so they can fix their packages.
> [...]
>
> If my understanding is right, the transition can be completed quickly
> once linux-tools is updated. Please confirm whether this is the case.
>
Apparently, I missed google-perftools. But fortunately, Daigo seems to
have taken care of that in sid.
> Otherwise, as upstream support for Linux 3.12 will end soon, I would
> prefer to get 3.13 into testing before making a change which could
> result in linux-tools waiting a long time.
>
> Ben.
>
Noted. I believe your assertion to be correct and that only linux-tools
need an upload. From there linux-tools, google-perftools and julia need
to migrate to testing and we should be done.
~Niels
Reply to: