Bug#1081553: transition: abseil
- To: Benjamin Barenblat <bbaren@debian.org>, 1081553@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#1081553: transition: abseil
- From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 00:04:09 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] ZwBmWWDn5_HDevpS@ramacher.at>
- Reply-to: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 1081553@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <87frq37m6f.jfx@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name>
- References: <172616474354.765689.11215010682488054342.reportbug@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name> <ZuQNHM_PkpQItctj@ramacher.at> <172616474354.765689.11215010682488054342.reportbug@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name> <87frq37m6f.jfx@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name> <172616474354.765689.11215010682488054342.reportbug@dymaxion.benjamin.barenblat.name>
On 2024-09-13 08:50:00 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> On Friday, September 13, 2024, at 11:59 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Do you also have test results for llvm-toolchain-{15,16,17,18,19}?
>
> I haven't actually tried them. They don't depend on Abseil directly,
> just on gRPC. I thus expect they will be broken by the transition until
> gRPC gets binNMU'd. Let me know if you'd like me to try rebuilding them
> anyway.
As they are key packages it would be good to know if we can rebuild them
without issues. If a rebuilt grpc would help to do the tests, I can
schedule binNMUs in experimental to have grpc built against the new
abseil.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
Reply to: