Bug#886182: transition: glibc 2.26

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

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 02/01/18 22:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Dear release team,
> 
> I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.26. It is available in
> experimental for one month and a half, and there is no known regression.
> It has been built successfully on all release architectures, and most
> other architectures besides kfreebsd-* which do not have build daemons
> anymore. The failures on hurd-i386 and hppa are being worked on and can
> be fixed in the upload to sid or later, so I don't think we should block
> the transition on that.
> 
> 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
>  - p11-kit
>  - unscd
> 
> Here is the corresponding ben file:
>   title = "glibc";
>   is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
>   is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.27\)/;
>   is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.26\)/;
> 
> In addition a few new symbols have been added that might prevent a few
> other packages to migrate to testing until glibc migrates if they pick
> up the new symbols. That's mostly the case for libm.so, which added
> 128-bit floating point support on amd64, i386, and ppc64el. On the
> libc.so side the new functions are reallocarray, preadv2 and pwritev2,
> which should not be widely used so far.
> 
> Thanks for considering

Please go ahead.

Emilio