Bug#891962: transition: glibc 2.27

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

Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.27.html
Control: tags -1 confirmed

Hi Aurelien,

On 03/03/18 10:21, 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 2.27. It is available in
> experimental for one month, 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 failure on alpha and sparc64 are fixed by patches currently
> being reviewed by upstream, and that will be included in the next upload. 
> 
> An archive rebuild has been done to find FTBFS caused by this new
> version. The corresponding bugs have been filled. Most of them have a
> patch or have been closed. You can find the list there:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=2.27;users=debian-glibc@lists.debian.org
> 
> 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.]* \(<< 2.28\)/;
>   is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.27\)/;
> 
> 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. I guess the most used ones are copy_file_range and
> memfd_create.
> 
> Thanks for considering

Please go ahead.

Thanks,
Emilio