Bug#961195: transition: glibc
On 2020-06-04 13:06, 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?
Yes I can do that. Do you have a list available?
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: