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

Bug#918987: transition: ode



On 13/01/2019 23:50, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> El 13/1/19 a les 15:52, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort ha escrit:
>> On 11/01/2019 18:09, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2019 15:17, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
>>>> Subject: transition: ode
>>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>>> Usertags: transition
>>>> Severity: normal
>>>>
>>>> Dear release team,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to ask a transition slot for the ode library. Upstream published a
>>>> new version with a soname bump. The affected packages can be build without any
>>>> problem with the new version (I did it in an pbuilder environment).
>>>>
>>>> Please accept with transition slot. I know that is too close to Buster freeze.
>>>
>>> Go ahead.
>>
>> And your package fails (and was already failing) to build on several release
>> architectures. You should have fixed that before requesting a transition slot.
>>
>> Please look at those failures:
>>
>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ode
>>
> 
> First of all I'm so sorry. I didn't check the build of the package
> because I thought that it was built. I was more worried about the
> dependencies than the package itself. Upstream told me the there was no
> important changes. I check specially ABI changes.
> 
> In any case, after I notice the problem I worked on. In some archs there
> was a problem in autotest, and in others an assert that for an check
> from upstream. The problem was in non common archs.
> 
> I pushed a new version of the package yesterday night solving the issue
> in some archs and this morning I have pushed another version of the
> package with the patches sent by upstream. Also, some people in
> #debian-mentors helped me in this issue.
> 
> Now, it builds in all the archs expect ia64 because some dependencies,
> not the package itself.

Thanks for the prompt fix. binNMUs scheduled.

Cheers,
Emilio


Reply to: