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

Bug#998148: marked as done (transition: libavif)

Your message dated Fri, 5 Nov 2021 12:28:18 +0100
with message-id <YYUVUsl4FOFtw9Q+@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#998148: transition: libavif
has caused the Debian Bug report #998148,
regarding transition: libavif
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.)


-- 
998148: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998148
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-CC: byang@debian.org norbert@preining.info
Severity: normal

I plan to start another libavif transition as shown in the following
transition tracker:

https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libavif.html

The new version of libavif library (libavif/0.9.3) has bumped SONAME and needs
a transition. The only reverse build-dependency is kimageformats, and I have
verified that the build would still pass with the new libavif currently in
experimental.

Example Ben file (the one currently on auto-libavif page should be ok):

title = "libavif";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libavif12" | .depends ~ "libavif13";
is_good = .depends ~ "libavif13";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libavif12";

This would be an identical transition as https://bugs.debian.org/992316 , and
I expect that only binNMUs would be involved, just like in last time.

Thanks,
Boyuan Yang

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2021-10-31 15:44:58, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> On 2021-10-30 20:11:43, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > X-Debbugs-CC: byang@debian.org norbert@preining.info
> > Severity: normal
> > 
> > I plan to start another libavif transition as shown in the following
> > transition tracker:
> > 
> > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libavif.html
> > 
> > The new version of libavif library (libavif/0.9.3) has bumped SONAME and needs
> > a transition. The only reverse build-dependency is kimageformats, and I have
> > verified that the build would still pass with the new libavif currently in
> > experimental.
> 
> Please go ahead

libavif12 got removed.

Cheers

> 
> Cheers
> 
> > 
> > Example Ben file (the one currently on auto-libavif page should be ok):
> > 
> > title = "libavif";
> > is_affected = .depends ~ "libavif12" | .depends ~ "libavif13";
> > is_good = .depends ~ "libavif13";
> > is_bad = .depends ~ "libavif12";
> > 
> > This would be an identical transition as https://bugs.debian.org/992316 , and
> > I expect that only binNMUs would be involved, just like in last time.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Boyuan Yang
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sebastian Ramacher
> 

-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: