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

Bug#1003176: marked as done (transition: perl 5.34)

Your message dated Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:06:11 +0100
with message-id <Yg6qs6NDKFPI0I+u@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1003176: transition: perl 5.34
has caused the Debian Bug report #1003176,
regarding transition: perl 5.34
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.)


-- 
1003176: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003176
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: 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.

Not sure if this Ben file is correct but hope it helps a bit:

title = "perl";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libperl5.32|perlapi-5.32" | .pre-depends ~ "libperl5.32|perlapi-5.32";
is_good = .depends ~ "libperl5.34|perlapi-5.34" | .pre-depends ~ "libperl5.34|perlapi-5.34";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libperl5.32|perlapi-5.32" | .pre-depends ~ "libperl5.32|perlapi-5.32";

Thanks for your work,
-- 
Niko Tyni   ntyni@debian.org

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2022-02-05 15:53:38 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 12:40:53PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> 
> > Uploading this afternoon.
> 
> perl_5.34.0-3 uploaded and accepted.

perl migrated and libperl5.32 got removed from testing. Closing

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: