Re: libstdc++ follow-up transitions

[Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>]

On 18/08/15 00:37, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:46:16PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Having done more rebuilds in Ubuntu, it would be great if you could
>> publish a complete list of the transitions you believe to be necessary
> 
> Here's the count of source packages in Ubuntu wily that produce binary
> packages ending in 'v5', which is probably a good approximation

Thanks, I have added them to <https://titanpad.com/UtA5km2wW6> so we can
hopefully get a better picture of what needs to be done.

For the items that are still to-do or undecided, I've been adding
reverse dependency counts to that list, using max(broken build-depends,
source packages with broken depends) from a dak command like "dak rm -R
-n adplug", so that people can see whether they are "almost leaf"
packages or not. In most cases the answer is that they have < 10 direct
rdeps, which strikes me as getting into "fix it later" territory.

hunspell is one notable exception, if it does indeed need renaming (I
haven't verified)

I think we might be at or approaching a point where it is worthwhile to
schedule a significant number of binNMUs and make more of unstable
installable again, without needing to re-binNMU too many of the same
packages later? For instance, the ilmbase -> openexr -> opencv stack are
all fixed in unstable, and so are most of the glibmm stack (e.g. gtkmm).

    S