Bug#823335: transition: gdal
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 03/05/16 19:12, Bas Couwenberg wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Dear Release Team,
>
> For the Debian GIS team I'd like to transition to GDAL 2.1.0.
>
> There is no SONAME bump as for 2.0, only the virtual ABI package changed
> to account for the C++ symbol changes.
>
> All reverse dependencies rebuilt successfully with GDAL 2.1.0 from
> experimental.
>
> libgdal-grass doesn't need a binNMU as the 2.1.0 version will be
> uploaded to unstable instead. The initial upload to experimental is
> currently in NEW awaiting FTP master review.
>
>
> Ben file:
>
> title = "gdal";
> is_affected = .depends ~ "gdal-abi-2-0-2" | .depends ~ "gdal-abi-2-1-0";
> is_good = .depends ~ "gdal-abi-2-1-0";
> is_bad = .depends ~ "gdal-abi-2-0-2";
>
>
> Transition: gdal
>
> libgdal20 (2.0.2+dfsg-5) -> libgdal20 (2.1.0+dfsg-1)
> gdal-abi-2-0-2 -> gdal-abi-2-1-0
>
> The status of the most recent rebuilds is as follows.
>
> dans-gdal-scripts (0.23-5) OK
> fiona (1.6.3-2) OK
> gazebo (7.0.0+dfsg-2) OK
> gmt (5.2.1+dfsg-4) OK
> imposm (2.6.0+ds-2) OK
> libcitygml (2.0-2) OK
> liblas (1.8.0-9) OK
> libosmium (2.6.1-1) OK
> mapcache (1.4.1-2) OK
> mapnik (3.0.11+ds-1) OK
> mapserver (7.0.1-3) OK
> merkaartor (0.18.2-7) OK
> mysql-workbench (6.3.4+dfsg-3) OK
> ncl (6.3.0-8) OK
> node-srs (0.4.8+dfsg-2) OK
> openscenegraph (3.2.3+dfsg1-1) OK
> osmium (0.0~20160124-b30afd3-1) OK
> pdal (1.2.0-2) OK
> postgis (2.2.2+dfsg-1) OK
> pprepair (0.0~20151110-28dca91-1) OK
> prepair (0.7-5) OK
> qlandkartegt (1.8.1+ds-5) OK
> qmapshack (1.6.1-2) OK
> rasterio (0.34.0-1) OK
> saga (2.2.4+dfsg-1) OK
> sumo (0.25.0+dfsg1-3) OK
> thuban (1.2.2-10) OK
> vtk6 (6.2.0+dfsg1-11.1 / 6.3.0+dfsg1-1~exp2) OK / OK
> xastir (2.0.6-4) OK
>
> grass (7.0.4-1) OK
> osgearth (2.7.0+dfsg-1) OK
> osmcoastline (2.1.3-1) OK
> pktools (2.6.6-1) OK
> pyosmium (2.6.0-1) OK
>
> libgdal-grass (2.0.2-2 / 2.1.0-1~exp1) FTBFS / OK
> qgis (2.14.1+dfsg-2 / 2.14.2+dfsg-1~exp1) OK / OK
Go ahead.
Cheers,
Emilio
Reply to: