Bug#1081553: transition: abseil
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-abseil.html
On 2024-09-12 14:12:23 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> X-Debbugs-Cc: abseil@packages.debian.org, Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org>
> Control: affects -1 + src:abseil
>
> I'd like to transition sid from Abseil 20230802 to Abseil 20240722. The new
> version has a new ABI (with a new SONAME and new binary package names).
>
> Tests for 20240722.0-1 in experimental are green on all supported architectures.
>
> A number of packages in sid depend directly on Abseil. To give early warning of
> breakages, I've done trial rebuilds as appropriate on the amd64 porterbox.
> Packages that work fine with the new version:
>
> - dm-tree
> - libgav1
> - libphonenumber
> - mozc
> - mujoco
> - open-vm-tools
> - protobuf
> - re2
> - ycmd
>
> Packages that are broken by the new version:
>
> - falcosecurity-libs: FTBFS because it depends both on Abseil directly
> and on Abseil via RE2, and the RE2 in unstable hasn't been built
> against the new Abseil.
>
> - grpc: FTBFS because it depends both on Abseil directly and on Abseil
> via Protobuf, and the Protobuf in unstable hasn't been built against
> the new Abseil.
>
> - s2geometry: FTBFS because it hard-codes std=c+11 and the new version
> requires -std=c++14 or later (https://bugs.debian.org/1059228)
>
> - webrtc-audio-processing: FTBFS because it relies on transitive
> #includes that have changed
>
> Packages that I'm not sure about:
>
> - firebird4.0: has an active FTBFS (https://bugs.debian.org/1079523)
>
> - ortools: has an active FTBFS (https://bugs.debian.org/1024790)
>
> - libreoffice: too big to build on a porterbox, so left untested
Thanks for doing the test builds. Do you also have test results for
llvm-toolchain-{15,16,17,18,19}?
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: