[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#796561: marked as done (insighttoolkit4 library transition when GCC 5 is the default)

Your message dated Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:48:41 +0200
with message-id <56097D79.1020403@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#796561: insighttoolkit: ABI transition needed for libstdc++ v5
has caused the Debian Bug report #796561,
regarding insighttoolkit4 library transition when GCC 5 is the default
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
796561: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=796561
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: insighttoolkit4
Version: 4.7.2-2
Severity: important

I'm not 100% sure that a transition is required, but
I have uploaded a new version 4.8.0 (with new SOVERSION)
built with GCC 5.  It was uploaded to experimental for staging.

-Steve


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.0.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 13/09/15 00:54, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On September 2, 2015 02:48:01 PM you wrote:
> 
>>> I haven't checked, but I will be conservative and assume it needs
>>> transition. I have already staged v4.8 in experimental for that purpose;
>>> see also #793250 and #796561.
>>
>> Thanks, I've noted those on the Titanpad. I will not open a separate bug
>> here, since #796561 can act as the tracking bug.
> 
> I see that there are build failures now for insighttoolkit4.  I'm going to 
> have a look at these in the coming days.  Should I need an upload to fix: would 
> I be able to target unstable or should it still stay in experimental?

Doesn't really matter because insighttoolkit4 isn't in testing at the moment,
and the version in sid doesn't build on i386. So feel free to act as you
consider appropriate. I'm closing this for now, feel free to reopen or file a
binnmu bug for when / if you need binnmus.

Regards,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: