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

Bug#1079615: marked as done (transition: glibc 2.40)

Your message dated Sun, 1 Sep 2024 18:42:57 +0200
with message-id <ZtSZkUYKM01LQwaw@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1079615: transition: glibc 2.40
has caused the Debian Bug report #1079615,
regarding transition: glibc 2.40
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.)


-- 
1079615: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1079615
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: glibc@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:glibc
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Dear release team,

I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.40. It has been
available in experimental for one month already. It has been built
successfully on all release architectures and most ports architectures.
The experimental pseudo-excuses look good overall, and there is no known
issue.

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.]* \(<< 2.41\)/;
  is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.40\)/;

In addition a few symbols got added to libm in this version to add
support for the exp2m1*, exp10m1*, log2p1*, log10p1*, logp1* ISO C23
functions. They are unlikely to be used at this point, so this should
not block package migration to testing during the transition.

Overall this glibc transition looks easier than some of the previous
ones.

Thanks for considering.

Regards,
Aurelien

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2024-08-25 20:20:20 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2024-08-25 16:53, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 confirmed
> > Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.40.html
> > 
> > On 2024-08-25 14:28:36 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > Severity: normal
> > > X-Debbugs-Cc: glibc@packages.debian.org
> > > Control: affects -1 + src:glibc
> > > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > > Usertags: transition
> > > 
> > > Dear release team,
> > > 
> > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.40. It has been
> > > available in experimental for one month already. It has been built
> > > successfully on all release architectures and most ports architectures.
> > > The experimental pseudo-excuses look good overall, and there is no known
> > > issue.
> > 
> > Please go ahead.
> 
> Thanks, I have just uploaded it.

glibc migrated. Closing

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: