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

Bug#1003599: marked as done (transition: octave)

Your message dated Sat, 22 Jan 2022 09:27:11 +0100
with message-id <Yeu/31WLq4tlFeiS@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1003599: transition: octave
has caused the Debian Bug report #1003599,
regarding transition: octave
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.)


-- 
1003599: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003599
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-octave@lists.debian.org

Dear Release Team,

Please schedule a transition for octave 6.4, which is currently in
experimental. All Octave add-ons need to be recompiled, because of a change in
the interface exposed to them.

Note that, due to an upstream change, Octave add-ons no longer explicitly link
against Octave libraries (i.e. those libraries are no longer in the ELF
DT_NEEDED section, which is not an issue since they are dynamic loadable
modules). As a consequence, we have decided to drop the (shared library)
liboctaveN package. The shared libraries are now installed in private
locations, per policy, and following upstream practice. We now exclusively rely
on pseudo-package octave-abi-NN for tracking ABI requirements.

The transition should be straightforward. Our expectation is that only one
package (nlopt) will need a sourceful upload, and we will take care of it.

Here is the Ben file (note that it’s different from the autogenerated one):

title = "octave6.4";
is_affected = .depends ~ /liboctave8|octave-abi-55|octave-abi-56/;
is_good = .depends ~ /octave-abi-56/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /liboctave8|octave-abi-55/;

Thanks,

--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  https://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  https://www.debian.org

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2022-01-21 22:45:31 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2022-01-18 19:25:08 +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > Le mardi 18 janvier 2022 à 19:18 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher a écrit :
> > > On 2022-01-18 09:11:01 +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > > > Le lundi 17 janvier 2022 à 11:03 +0100, Sébastien Villemot a écrit :
> > > > > Le dimanche 16 janvier 2022 à 21:11 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher a écrit :
> > > > > > On 2022-01-12 13:46:03 +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > > > > > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > > > > > Severity: normal
> > > > > > > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > > > > > > Usertags: transition
> > > > > > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-octave@lists.debian.org
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Please schedule a transition for octave 6.4, which is currently in
> > > > > > > experimental. All Octave add-ons need to be recompiled, because of a change in
> > > > > > > the interface exposed to them.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please go ahead
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks. octave 6.4.0-2 has been uploaded to unstable, and compiled on
> > > > > all release architectures.
> > > > 
> > > > The recompilation process is almost completed. The only remaining
> > > > problem is octave-tisean which fails to rebuild on s390x (see #874116,
> > > > which is a long-standing issue).
> > > > 
> > > > octave-tisean is a leaf package, so I suggest to remove it from
> > > > testing, so that we can complete the transition.
> > > 
> > > Removal hint added.
> > > 
> > > Note that octave-database's autopkgtest on armhf regressed. See
> > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/armhf/o/octave-database/18432401/log.gz
> > > for the log
> > 
> > I’ve tried to reproduce the failure on abel.d.o, but the autopkgtest
> > succeeded. I have no clue about the problem. If this is an option for
> > you, then I would simply force the migration despite the bad test.
> 
> Bug filed (#1004158) and hint added.

… and it's done.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: