Bug#829145: transition: glibc 2.23

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>]

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 01/07/16 01:41, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Dear release team,
> 
> We would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.23. It is currently
> available in experimental and has been built successfully on all
> official architectures except hurd-i386. We have fixed the hurd-i386
> failure in out git, and we are working on build failures for alpha, hppa
> and sparc64. There are due to testsuite issue, mostly in the math parts
> and do not look very critical.
> 
> It should be noted that this upload will make a few packages to FTBFS,
> mostly due to more precise checking in the floating-point classification
> macros (isnan, isinf, ...). In most of the cases the changes just make
> existing bugs visible. The list of affected packages is available [1]
> (thanks to Martin Michlmayr), and the bugs have been opened for more
> than 3 months.
> 
> As the glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
> said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
> rebuilt for this transition:
>  - apitrace
>  - bro
>  - dante
>  - libnih
>  - libnss-db
>  - unscd
>  
> Here is the corresponding ben file:
>  
> title = "glibc";
> is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
> is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.24\)/;
> is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.23\)/;
> 
> In addition to that, a few new symbols have been added that might
> prevent a few other packages to transition to testing if they pick up
> the new symbols, namely the fts64_* and the lgamma* ones. It should not
> concerns many packages.

Go ahead.

Cheers,
Emilio