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

Bug#1056574: marked as done (transition: ppp)

Your message dated Fri, 3 May 2024 07:35:35 +0200
with message-id <ZjR3pyaESNE9cjbS@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1056574: transition: ppp
has caused the Debian Bug report #1056574,
regarding transition: ppp
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.)


-- 
1056574: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1056574
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: ppp@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ppp

Hello Release Team friends,

I uploaded ppp-2.5.0-1+1 to experimental back in September, and I think
it's time to unleash it on unstable, ideally in the next few days. This
is an ABI break both due to the new upstream version but there are also
significant changes in this release that may break dependent packages.

The upload I'm planning, 2.5.0-1+2, only has a minor fix for loong64 and
a changelog fix.

As usual this isn't a traditional library package upload so the Ben file
looks a bit foreign. See #890204 for a previous time we did this.

Thanks,
Chris

Ben file:

title = "ppp";
is_affected = .build-depends ~ /ppp-dev/;
is_good = .depends ~ /ppp \(>= 2\.5\.0-1\+~\)/ | .breaks ~ /ppp \(<< 2\.5\.0-1\+~\)/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /ppp \(>= 2\.4\.9-1\+~\)/ | .breaks ~ /ppp \(<< 2\.4\.9-1\+~\)/;

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2024-04-20 10:29:44 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> On 2024-04-19 17:11:44 +0100, Chris Boot wrote:
> > On 26/11/2023 11:36, Chris Boot wrote:
> > > On 26/11/2023 10:56, Chris Boot wrote:
> > > > > Any way to reduce possible breakage, or to detect and fix it
> > > > > before the transition starts? Like rebuilding rdeps, or checking
> > > > > rdep autopkgtests?
> > > > 
> > > > I'll go an do some rebuilds now and see how they go. If any breakage
> > > > occurs it will be obvious at build time.
> > > 
> > > The status of the rdeps (list taken from the tracker):
> > > 
> > > connman: OK
> > > network-manager: OK
> > > pptpd: https://bugs.debian.org/1056898
> > > sstp-client: https://bugs.debian.org/1056900
> > > 
> > > network-manager-fortisslvpn: https://bugs.debian.org/1056901
> > > network-manager-l2tp: OK
> > > network-manager-pptp: OK
> > > network-manager-sstp: https://bugs.debian.org/1056903
> > 
> > All that's left now is pptpd (with an offer from Christoph to upload when
> > ready) and network-manager-fortisslvpn (with commits fixing the issues
> > upstream, but no upstream release).
> > 
> > In the mean time, #1065940 has become a blocker for the time_t transition. I
> > think I'd rather upload 2.5.0 and break network-manager-fortisslvpn than
> > just the patch to fix the breakage.
> > 
> > Would the release team be happy to continue with this transition?
> 
> Please go ahead with the upload to unsable.

ppp and reverse dependencies migrated. Closing

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: