Bug#891962: marked as done (transition: glibc 2.27)
Your message dated Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:00:48 +0100
with message-id <a5886470-5868-f600-889e-c9e896c2625e@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#891962: transition: glibc 2.27
has caused the Debian Bug report #891962,
regarding transition: glibc 2.27
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.)
--
891962: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=891962
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
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
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE= (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 03/03/18 11:59, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2018-03-03 10:36, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> 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 for the quick answer, I have just uploaded it.
And it's in testing now. Closing.
Emilio
--- End Message ---
Reply to: