Your message dated Sun, 27 Nov 2022 12:11:14 +0100 with message-id <Y4NF0ppbqgTFYPDQ@ramacher.at> and subject line Re: Bug#1018945: transition: libbpf has caused the Debian Bug report #1018945, regarding transition: libbpf 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.) -- 1018945: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018945 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: transition: libbpf
- From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2022 11:13:26 +0100
- Message-id: <YxHXRtRAUxsxiwn+@debian>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition X-Debbugs-Cc: sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com Hi, This is the most complicated transition I have ever asked for. Please bear with me. 10 affected packages. Dependency level 2: Fails to build and bug raised with "Severity: important": bpfcc - #1018818 dwarves - #1018906 knot - #1018911 qemu - #1018913 suricata - #1018914 v4l-utils - #1018915 xdp-tools - #1018916 dpdk/21.11-5 - builds fine with libbpf from experimental. iproute2/5.19.0-1 - builds fine with libbpf from experimental. Dependency level 3: bpftrace - could not test as it will also need bpfcc. The autogenerated ben tracker looks good. Please consider 'libbpf' for transition. Thanks in advance. -- Regards Sudip
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>, 1018945-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#1018945: transition: libbpf
- From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 12:11:14 +0100
- Message-id: <Y4NF0ppbqgTFYPDQ@ramacher.at>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] CADVatmO4SnVrn0QpqGzCBzEniA04nj_fgzO1RpzcMKG3hKwvsA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CADVatmMuYZxKynP_SVdhZxvizxLpOPWY5cjcL61C0sEfcnEQNg@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] Y2WqG9GBtqOBZRHX@debian> <[🔎] Y2bEEWsOVRAkuxXm@ramacher.at> <YxHXRtRAUxsxiwn+@debian> <[🔎] CADVatmNHYdyRCc7ujHFKxg=H=eLKS3JCFfwqCSxacZu6kf6kFg@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] Y210qGNaCcOE39dP@ramacher.at> <YxHXRtRAUxsxiwn+@debian> <[🔎] CADVatmO4SnVrn0QpqGzCBzEniA04nj_fgzO1RpzcMKG3hKwvsA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2022-11-11 09:38:09 +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:01 PM Sebastian Ramacher > <sramacher@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On 2022-11-06 11:36:16 +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 8:14 PM Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Control: tags -1 confirmed > > > > > > > > On 2022-11-05 00:11:07 +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > > Control: tags -1 - moreinfo > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:22:32PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider libbpf for transition. > > > > > > > > Please go ahead > > > > > > Thanks. Has been uploaded. > > > > The autopkgtests of dpdk regressed on amd64: > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/d/dpdk/28081847/log.gz > > Could you please take a look? > > I have seen that, and also noticed that the test was with dpdk from > testing which is not rebuilt with libbpf from unstable. So I triggered > a new job to see the result of dpdk/unstable with libbpf/unstable. > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/unstable/amd64/d/dpdk/28109044/log.gz > > The job you linked uses dpdk/21.11-5+b1 > And, the job I triggered uses dpdk/21.11-5+b2 which is the binnmu for > libbpf transition. > > And, the test passed. Not sure if I need to do something for it. The old binaries got removed from testing. Closing. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---