[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#918341: transition: jemalloc



Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 05/01/2019 11:29, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> 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!

Please go ahead.

Emilio


Reply to: