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

Bug#954654: transition: hdf5



Hi,

There is a fix for #954244 in experimental but I there are other more
serious problems with mpich-3.4a4-2

Upstream quietly reset the soversion to 0 (as its an alpha package). The
code works but any users of libmpich12 break.

3.4 when released will bump the soversion (it drops some symbols).

The simplest solution for mpich is to leave the blocker so that the
dodgy package doesn't transition, until mpich 3.4 is released.

I don't have a timetable for the mpich 3.4 release, which now entangles
hdf5.

Alternatively, we can pre-empt and increment the mpich soversion (as
I've tested in experimental) and start an mpich transition.

regards

Alastair


On 06/04/2020 11:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 28/03/2020 10:50, Gilles Filippini wrote:
>> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit le 27/03/2020 à 13:29 :
>>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>>
>>> On 22/03/2020 12:19, Gilles Filippini wrote:
>>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>>> Severity: normal
>>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>>> Usertags: transition
>>>>
>>>> Hi Release Team,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to transition hdf5 1.10.6+repack-1~exp5 currently sitting in
>>>> experimental.
>>>>
>>>> Among the 112 tested reverse dependencies, only 7 FTBFS, and there failures
>>>> aren't related to the transition:
>>>> jhdf       KO - #875584 - Not in testing
>>>> openmolcas KO - Not in testing
>>>> sra-sdk    KO - #952623 - Removal from testing on the 10/04/2020
>>>> xmds2      KO - #938925 - Not in testing
>>>> ants       KO - Multiple RC bugs - Not in testing
>>>> siconos    KO - #954497 - Removal from testing on the 29/03/2020
>>>> simpleitk  KO - #949355 - Not in testing
>>> Sounds good. Go ahead.
>> Uploaded!
> hdf5 is currently blocked from migrating to testing on mpich due to #954244.
>
> Cheers,
> Emilio
>
-- 
Alastair McKinstry, email: alastair@sceal.ie, matrix: @alastair:sceal.ie, phone: 087-6847928
Green Party Councillor, Galway County Council 


Reply to: