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

Bug#986602: unblock: mkvtoolnix/54.0.0-2



Control: tags -1 moreinfo

On 2021-04-07 23:12:01, Christian Marillat wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> 
> Please unblock package mkvtoolnix
> 
> This package was stuck in unstable since january 2021 due to gcc-10 bugs
> (See #980429 and #986520).
> 
> I was waiting for a new gcc-10 release to unstable but the gcc-10 maintainer tell me today :
> 
> Please work around it by using gcc-9 for bullseye. I'm not going to
> cherry-pick single patches from the branch.
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=986520#15
> 
> I know that we have 52.0.0-1 in testing and I did new uploads (53 and 54)
> when testing was not hard frozen and now I'm unable to upload a 52.0.0-2
> package build with gcc-9 to unstable, this explain the 54.0.0-2 upload.
> 
> I've not seen any bug with 54.0.0-2 and this package is safe for me.
> 
> unblock mkvtoolnix/54.0.0-2

The diff between testing and unstable is:

  746 files changed, 89826 insertions(+), 59919 deletions(-)

That doesn't appear to be an upstream release with only targetted fixes.
I'm also quite surprised that new upstream releases were uploaded to
unstable while gcc-10 was not fixed. Indeed, all builds starting from
52.0.0-2 to 54.0.0-1 failed on amd64, i386, mipsel, ppc64el (on the
other architectures some of them failed, but not all).

So here we are. Possbile courses for action:
* Implement non-trivial autopkgtests that test the functionality of the
  installed binaries. The new upstream releases would still not comply
  with the freeze policy, but we wouldn't block it in this stage of the
  freeze.
* Mark #986520 as bullseye-ignore and if a there is a need to fix
  another issues in a bullsey-pu upload, switch CXX to g++-9 in that
  upload. From what I understand, this workaround is supposed to also
  work for 52.0.0.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher


Reply to: