Bug#1019845: transition: glibc 2.35

[Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>]

Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.35.html

On 2022-09-14 22:17:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 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 2.35. It has been
> available in experimental for one month and does not have any known
> major issue. 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 ones are
> due to britney bugs, broken autopkgtest or packages parts of the
> transition.
> 
> 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. Here is the corresponding ben file:
> 
>   title = "glibc";
>   is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
>   is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.36\)/;
>   is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.35\)/;
> 
> 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 really limited in this version and
> mostly linked to the new math functions introduced for ISO C2x support,
> so unlikely to be massively used by default. Therefore overall this
> transition should be way simpler than the glibc 2.34 one.
> 
> Thanks for considering.

Let's start with this one after the udeb block is lifted and the D-I
alpha is done.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher