Bug#1003176: transition: perl 5.34
- To: Niko Tyni <ntyni@debian.org>, 1003176@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#1003176: transition: perl 5.34
- From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 21:49:28 +0100
- Message-id: <Yfw/2MenE1c6ix63@ramacher.at>
- Reply-to: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 1003176@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <Ye0/zH00ute0huIw@ramacher.at>
- References: <20220105170054.GA29675@urchin.earth.li> <20220105170054.GA29675@urchin.earth.li> <Ye0/zH00ute0huIw@ramacher.at> <20220105170054.GA29675@urchin.earth.li>
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 2022-01-23 12:45:16, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: block -1 by 1002681
> Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/perl-5.34.html
>
> On 2022-01-05 17:00:54 +0000, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-perl@lists.debian.org, perl@packages.debian.org
> > Control: block -1 with 1002093 997267 997189
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we'd like a transition slot for Perl 5.34.
> >
> > Should have done this months ago, but real life has interfered. Sorry
> > about that.
> >
> > Perl 5.36 is scheluded for May or so, and I expect that will be our target
> > for bookworm. Nevertheless, it's probably best to do this incrementally
> > and have a 5.34 transition now in case 5.36 turns out to be difficult
> > for some reason.
> >
> > The changes in 5.34 are quite small, as upstream spent most of that
> > release cycle planning Perl 7 (which did not quite work out.) This
> > reflects in the very low number regressions we found in our test
> > rebuilds, visible at
> >
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=perl-5.34-transition;users=debian-perl@lists.debian.org
> >
> > with just one bug open (openscap, not in testing).
> >
> > I did a full archive test rebuild back in May, and partial test rebuilds
> > in August. Coming back to this now, I've done another round of test
> > rebuilds for those packages that will need binNMUs. I don't think another
> > full round is necessary: it seems unlikely that the other packages might
> > have introduced any Perl 5.34 related regressions in the meantime.
> >
> > There's a few packages that have unrelated build failures in current sid.
> > I'm marking the ones in testing as blockers for this.
>
> Some packages are also involved in the ongoing ocaml transition. So
> let's wait for ocaml to be done.
ocaml is done, so please go ahead.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: