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

Bug#1001438: marked as done (transition: glibc 2.33)

Your message dated Thu, 16 Dec 2021 23:16:40 +0100
with message-id <Ybu6yMVWFDF3B+r3@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
has caused the Debian Bug report #1001438,
regarding transition: glibc 2.33
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.)


-- 
1001438: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1001438
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
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-glibc@lists.debian.org

Dear release team,

I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.33. It has been
available in experimental for one month and a half without any reported
bug report. It has been built successfully on all release architectures
and many ports architectures.

A few issues found through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for
experimental have been fixed. The remaining are false positive, with the
exception of kore, but which is not testing as it FTBFS.

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. 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
relatively limited in this version.

A tracker is already setup at:
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.33.html

Thanks for considering.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2021-12-14 07:52:09 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2021-12-13 20:21:52 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2021-12-13 00:11, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On 2021-12-12 22:18, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > > Hi Aurelien,
> > > > 
> > > > On 12-12-2021 12:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks, I'll add the necessary hints once the glibc upload is old
> > > > > > enough.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Those false positives are due to the fact that glibc from experimental
> > > > > is used, and I do not expect them to appear for glibc in sid. In
> > > > > addition a few of them after cruft got removed from experimental.
> > > > > 
> > > > > All that said, we so many reverse dependencies, there might get more
> > > > > issues appearing.
> > > > 
> > > > I just started to have a look, most issues I've checked so far look false
> > > > positives. But aribas on i386 wasn't tested for the glibc in experimental
> > > > (don't know why) but it fails now in unstable and tested with glibc from
> > > > unstable in testing with stack smashing:
> > > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/i386/a/aribas/17507755/log.gz
> > > 
> > > It's likely an issue on the package, but without further investigating,
> > > I can't confirm. I'll try to do that tomorrow.
> > 
> > I have opened bug#1001653 about it.
> 
> I've filed bugs for the remaining autopkgtest regressions that were not
> caused by glibc (flaky tests, etc.) and then added a force-skiptest hint
> for glibc. Unless new issues pop up, it should migrate once it reaches 5
> days.

glibc migrated.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: