Bug#918341: transition: jemalloc
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Release Team,
This has been pending for a long time, and while the pieces have been
mostly there, I've dropped the ball and did not proceed with the
transition earlier. Apologies for this and for the last minute
submission!
So, I'd like to ask for permission to upload jemalloc 5.1.0-2 to sid:
- stretch/buster have 3.6.0-11, a pretty old upstream version, and also
presenting some long-standing issues like #843926 (hard-coded page
sizes at build time).
- 5.1.0-1 has been in experimental since May 2018, and has successfully
been built on all official architectures (and all debian-ports except
hurd-i386 and riscv64). I have not made an upload to unstable, but can
do so as soon as you give me the green light.
- This newer version uses a slightly different ABI and thus has a new
SONAME and binary package, libjemalloc2 (vs. libjemalloc1), so this
requires a transition. API is (mostly) the same -- the exception being
what was an experimental API that has been now dropped and replaced by
a stable one.
- Adam Borowski (Cc'ed), who was interested in this and pinged me about
it recently, ran a rebuild of all rdepds and encountered and reported
only one FTBFS among packages in testing, #914814 affecting spades,
which was using the aforementioned experimental API and -as of a few
minutes ago- has a patch attached.
- Ubuntu apparently imported 5.1.0-1 to their distribution back in May,
and shipped their Cosmic stable release with it ([1] says "Copied from
debian experimental in Primary Archive for Debian GNU/Linux by Steve
Langasek"), apparently with no ill effects(?)
Let me know if there are any questions and thanks for your work and
consideration!
Ben file:
title = "jemalloc";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libjemalloc1" | .depends ~ "libjemalloc2";
is_good = .depends ~ "libjemalloc2";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libjemalloc1";
Regards,
Faidon
1: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jemalloc/+publishinghistory
Reply to: