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

Bug#1031927: marked as done (Handling the libsgutils2-2 #994758 bookworm-ignore)

Your message dated Sun, 5 Mar 2023 11:01:19 +0100
with message-id <ZARobx32NgpF8OgU@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1031927: Handling the libsgutils2-2 #994758 bookworm-ignore
has caused the Debian Bug report #1031927,
regarding Handling the libsgutils2-2 #994758 bookworm-ignore
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.)


-- 
1031927: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031927
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal

With the bookworm-ignore for #994758, bullseye and bookworm
will ship libsgutils2-2 packages with different so-name.

This means mixing bullseye/bookworm libsgutils2-2 and rdeps
would be brokwn in either direction.

My plan to resolve this is:
1. RC bug against libsgutils2-2 for Breaks against pre-bookworm
   versions of rdeps
2. RC bug against libsgutils2-2 to drop the symbols file,
   to ensure that rebuilt packages will depend on the bookworm version
3. Request binNMUs for rdeps to pick up stricter dependencies after 2.

Please confirm that this is the correct action
(this bug might then also be used for the binNMUs).

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2023-03-01 11:27:57 +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:07:09AM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > On 25-02-2023 14:30, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > With the bookworm-ignore for #994758,
> > > 
> > > I'll admit that I misjudged that bug; with this message I'll clear the
> > > bookworm-ignore tag.
> > > 
> > > > bullseye and bookworm
> > > > will ship libsgutils2-2 packages with different so-name.
> > > 
> > > Although the transition freeze has started long time ago, it seems that
> > > doing a proper transition is the best way to fix this issue. If somebody is
> > > up to the task to prepare the upload, we can ask ftp-master to process the
> > > upload swiftly. (Please upload to experimental to avoid the ftp-master from
> > > rejecting the package immediately and to enable reviewing if that's not done
> > > before the upload.)
> > 
> > This does not look overly hard and I have some familiarity with the
> > package having uploaded in the past. If no one else is already looking
> > at it I'll aim to have a version with a libsgutils2-1.46 library package
> > uploaded to experimental by the end of today.
> 
> Now sitting in NEW for experimental:
> 
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/sg3-utils_1.46-2.html
> 
> I have confirmed:
> 
>  * It will not co-exist with the libsgutils2-2 package in bookworm
>    (thanks to the versioned breaks/replaces)
>  * It will co-exist with the libsgutils2-2 package in bullseye (which is
>    1.45-1 and has no overlapping files)
>  * Operation of the sg3-utils package with this new build
> 
> It turns out I do not have access to the salsa git repo at present, but
> I've requested it and will push the changes there when it is granted.

Thank you for handling this issue. Closing.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: