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

Bug#950913: marked as done (transition: glibc)

Your message dated Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:47:34 +0100
with message-id <87ccb7f1-63c1-5898-f27f-92d49e82411e@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#950913: transition: glibc
has caused the Debian Bug report #950913,
regarding transition: glibc
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
950913: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=950913
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

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 2.30. It is available in
experimental for 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 hurd-i386 but it is already
fixed in git. It also fails to build on alpha, ia64 and sparc64 due
to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are
similar to existing failures in version 2.29. 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 (some packages only on some architectures):
 - apitrace
 - bro
 - dante
 - gcc-9
 - gcc-10
 - gcc-snapshot
 - libnih
 - libnss-db
 - unscd

Ben file:

Here is the corresponding ben file:
  title = "glibc";
  is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
  is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/;
  is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.30\)/;

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.

Thanks for considering.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.4.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 11/03/2020 23:15, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2020-03-11 09:44, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.30.html
>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>
>> Hi Aurelien,
>>
>> On 08/02/2020 10:16, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>> Usertags: transition
>>>
>>> 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 2.30. It is available in
>>> experimental for 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 hurd-i386 but it is already
>>> fixed in git. It also fails to build on alpha, ia64 and sparc64 due
>>> to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are
>>> similar to existing failures in version 2.29. 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 (some packages only on some architectures):
>>>  - apitrace
>>>  - bro
>>>  - dante
>>>  - gcc-9
>>>  - gcc-10
>>>  - gcc-snapshot
>>>  - libnih
>>>  - libnss-db
>>>  - unscd
>>>
>>> Ben file:
>>>
>>> Here is the corresponding ben file:
>>>   title = "glibc";
>>>   is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
>>>   is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/;
>>>   is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.30\)/;
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sorry for the delay. Please go ahead.
> 
> Thanks, I have just uploaded it.

This got entangled with gcc-{9,10} on s390x, but after helping those (as well as
glibc) a little bit they all went in, so let's close this.

Thanks,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: