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

Bug#1093272: marked as done (transition: ocaml)

Your message dated Sat, 8 Feb 2025 10:04:51 +0100
with message-id <665ff577-3065-48dc-8b27-5f7039f77119@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1093272: transition: ocaml
has caused the Debian Bug report #1093272,
regarding transition: ocaml
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.)


-- 
1093272: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1093272
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: 1092985@bugs.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:ocaml
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Dear Release Team,

I would like to request a transition slot for ocaml 5.3.0.

I've uploaded it to experimental, and it builds successfully on
all architectures so far:

  https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ocaml&suite=experimental
The only missing release architecture is riscv64 at the moment (in Needs-Build state). 

I recompiled the OCaml world with it:

  http://ocaml.debian.net/transitions/ocaml-5.3.0/

At most 424 source packages are involved. A binNMU will suffice for
most of them. I've posted a summary there:

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1092985#15

I think all problematic packages can be removed from testing. Bugs
have been filed:

 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ocaml-5.3.0-transition;users=debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
I've also run tests on ci.debian.net infrastructure with the recompiled packages, and no new regressions appear. 


Ben file:

title = "ocaml";
is_affected = .depends ~ /ocaml(-base)?-5\.2\.0/ | .depends ~ /ocaml(-base)?-5\.3\.0/; 
is_good = .depends ~ /ocaml(-base)?-5\.3\.0/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /ocaml(-base)?-5\.2\.0/;


Cheers,

--
Stéphane

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 08/02/2025 03:59, Stéphane Glondu wrote:

Hi,

Le 07/02/2025 à 13:17, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
I added a couple of things to unblock it, and migration was attempted. However, llvm-toolchain-15/testing breaks, as it hasn't been rebuilt against the new ocaml (because it's been removed from sid). One possible solution here would be to upload src:llvm-toolchain-15 to testing- proposed-updates removing the ocaml bits. Could you look at that? 

I've opened a merge request:


https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-llvm-team/llvm-toolchain/-/merge_requests/160
Somehow ocaml actually migrated yesterday (I'm not sure how), so this is no longer necessary, given llvm-toolchain-15 has already been removed from unstable, and thus it should be removed from testing as well. 


The 15 branch already contains changes to improve non-linux builds:

   https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-llvm-team/llvm-toolchain/-/commits/15

Are these changes welcome in testing-proposed-updates?
I'd prefer a minimal change, specially given there are no non-linux architectures on testing. But for now, I don't think we need to worry about this. 

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: