Bug#961195: transition: glibc
On 5/21/20 11:39 AM, 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 2.31. It is available in
> experimental for more than 2 months and there are no known issues or
> regression. It has been built successfully on all release architectures
> and most ports architectures. It fails to build on ia64 and sparc64 due
> to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are
> similar to existing failures in version 2.30. It doesn't build on
> kfreebsd-*, but this has been the case for a few glibc releases already.
>
> As 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
> - gcc-9 (s390x only)
> - libnih
> - libnss-db
> - r-bioc-preprocesscore
> - unscd
>
> Compare to the previous transition, gcc-10 and gcc-snapshot got removed,
> and r-bioc-preprocesscore got added.
>
> Here is the corresponding ben file:
> title = "glibc";
> is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
> is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.32\)/;
> is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/;
>
> 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, however those are really limited in this version.
there are dozens of packages that ftbfs with this new version. Please could you
at least file bug reports for all of those?
Reply to: