Bug#961195: transition: glibc
On 6/4/20 1:06 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 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?
this is about the missing SIOCGSTAMP macro. So maybe jsut triggered by a removed
glibc include? Including <linux/sockios.h> fixes these.
Reply to: