Bug#1050976: Bug#1050974: binNMU: Rebuild against curl without NSS support
Hi
On 2023-09-02 18:27:39 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> Hello Sebastian anb Paul,
>
> > So let's not just rebuild those. Samuel, please file bugs against those
> > packages so that the maintainers fix the build dependencies.
>
> I have filled bugs already, here's the current situation:
>
> eg25-manager:
> https://bugs.debian.org/1043547
> Has been fixed in git already, so the next upload will have the correct B-D.
>
> llvm-toolchain-14 and llvm-toolchain-15:
> https://bugs.debian.org/1043550
> https://bugs.debian.org/1043551
>
> I have not explicitly asked for the B-D change for llvm, and I think
> doing it so will be a waste of time and effort, let me explain.
> Both llvm-toolchain-14 and llvm-toolchain-15 will be removed from the
> archive soon, see their ROM bugs:
> https://bugs.debian.org/1050069
> https://bugs.debian.org/1050070
Removing old llvm-toolchain versions usually takes month. For reference,
removal of llvm-toolchain-13 took a year (RM bug was filed in August
2022) and is still part of trixie.
> On top of that, those two packages have already been rebuilt for
> riscv64 (no binNMUs required there), whereas if we force another
> upload only to solve this, we will trigger a build for every arch and
> needlessly consume at the very least 77 hours of the riscv builders'
> time (while we are still rebuilding the archive for riscv, delaying it
> all).
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-14&arch=riscv64
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-15&arch=riscv64
>
> Do you think that's a sensible compromise?
> I'm asking to proceed with binNMUs because eg25-manager has been fixed
> in git already and the llvm packages are about to be removed (although
> I want curl to migrate before that), also rebuilding them on riscv
> takes a lot of effort at a not-so-great time (no binNMUs required for
> riscv).
Please get those uploaded instead. We will rebuild
llvm-toolchain-{14,15} a bunch of times for transitions anyway. If
riscv64 buildds are not ready to cope with that, the architecture is not
ready to become a release architecture.
> Note: llvm-toolchain-16, which is going to be the new default, has
> already fixed the B-D and the package has been uploaded, so that's why
> there's no action for that one.
llvm-toolchain-16 can only become the default once its build is fixed on
mips64el. I have seen no progress in that direction, though.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: