Bug#673538: transition: gnustep-base, gnustep-gui
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 28/05/14 03:29, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > libgnustep-base1.22 -> 1.24
> > libgnustep-gui0.20 -> 0.24
>
> I have updated the tracker for that.
Thanks.
> As for libobj3 -> libobj4, there's just openvpn-auth-ldap remaining,
> which is #747989.
I'll take a look.
> What can block it is gnustep-base failing on s390x (it may be
> failing on other architectures as well, as the others were built 2
> years ago and have never been retried):
It will fail, yes, but this bug is fixed in 1.24.6-1.
Regardless, -base and -gui will fail to build everywhere due to a
(serious) bug in gnustep-make. That's also fixed in
gnustep-make/2.6.6-2 but not uploaded yet. See #752833 for details.
> > I rebuilt all GNUstep packages in the archive and fortunately there
> > are only two FTBFS bugs -- #749553 (cenon.app) and #749554 (sogo).
>
> I see one is fixed and the other one has a patch.
The patch attached to the bug is not entirely correct; the right fix
is in cenon.app.git.
I filed about ~30 bugs [1] based on build logs examination only (very
weak criteria for Objective-C code). Some are not so important
problems that have been around for a while but others are RC
candidates. Most packages are ready for upload with a fix available.
Few of the fixes depend on the new libraries. These bugs won't block
the transition in the trivial sense, but we must make sure they don't
sneak into jessie. Basically, all GNUstep packages will probably need
to be updated due to the new types NS(U)Integer and CGFloat, otherwise
they will be broken at least on 64-bit architectures.
[1]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=tag&users=pkg-gnustep-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org&data=gnustep-base1.24-transition
http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=gnustep-transition&user=pkg-gnustep-maintainers%40lists.alioth.debian.org
> > I'll ping you when the new core packages pass through NEW, OK?
>
> I don't see gnustep-gui 0.24 in NEW or in the archive. Was that ever
> uploaded? How are things looking here?
No, unfortunately nobody volunteered to sponsor them [2] yet... My
past sponsors are apparently busy and/or not interested anymore, so
we're a bit stuck at the moment. I guess patience is the key.
[2]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=originator%3Ayavor%40gnu.org;dist=unstable;package=sponsorship-requests
Reply to: