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