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

Bug#1026199: marked as done (release.debian.org: Is the toolchain list updated for bookworm)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Apr 2025 21:09:01 +0200
with message-id <Z_lozSBS0gAhEig0@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1026199: release.debian.org: Is the toolchain list updated for bookworm
has caused the Debian Bug report #1026199,
regarding release.debian.org: Is the toolchain list updated for bookworm
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.)


-- 
1026199: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026199
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal



I was looking at https://release.debian.org/testing/essential-and-build-essential.txt

trying to figure out which packages I'm involved in are covered by the
toolchain freeze.  I am wondering what's still pulling
libgssapi-krb5-2 and friends into build-essential.  It used to be
pulled in via pam via libtirpc, but that should have gone away with
the pam upload of 1.4.0-13.


I'm wondering if that list hasn't been recently updated or if there's some other dependency cycle pulling in krb5?

Thanks for your consideration,

--Sam

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2023-03-02 13:17:36 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry for the delayed answer, also to Sam's original question.
> 
> On 25-02-2023 17:52, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 09:47:59 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Ah, was wondering the same few days before the toolchain freeze, as I
> > > was unsure whether to update some of the packages I maintain (in
> > > particular libmd, for which I was thinking of doing a new upstream
> > > release), and was also checking hints for explicit blocks. See below…
> > 
> > Could we get an answer to the below question? I'm currently uncertain
> > how to proceed with libmd as I have pending to do an upstream release
> > with targeted fixes, and have several packaging fixes too. And
> > depending on the answer below I'd either discard one or both, and
> > request or not a pre-approval unblock, or forget about it. I've also
> > just pondered simply requesting a pre-approval unblock, given that to
> > me libmd seems clearly to be in the essential-set now, but… :)
> > 
> > (I don't greatly mind the answer, say "yes, they should be but because
> > they were not included we will include them on the next freeze", or "yes,
> > they should be considered", or "no, they are not", or anything else, I'm
> > more interested on knowing how to proceed to get this off the back of
> > my head. :)
> 
> I would hope that [1] describes what we're looking for with this list:
> """
> Debian has quite some packages that influence the content of packages and
> how they are built, i.e. most packages that are part of (build-)essential
> and other toolchain packages. The impact of bugs in these packages can take
> a lot of time to resolve because it requires figuring out which packages are
> affected and how they need to be rebuild after the bug itself is fixed.
> Therefore, changes to these kind of packages are no longer appropriate.
> """
> 
> The policy goes on with saying that that definition is (slightly) vague.
> What we are trying to avoid is changes to packages that influence the
> content of (lots of) binaries when build. I'm now realizing that our
> hard-coded list might be including a bit more (mostly libraries) packages
> than we really mean, but from our perspective that would be erring on the
> safe side and I think quite some work to understand how each of these is
> influencing the build in order to remove them from that list.
> 
> And yes, pre-depends was missing from the list; when I add it, libmd0 shows
> up. I'll hopefully update the list shortly (after a bit more checking on the
> additions and the MR).
> 
> As with all our rules, there's room for exceptions (decreasing while we
> progress towards the release), so please show the proposed changes with
> taking all of the above in mind (and maybe after reading our unblock FAQ
> [2]) if you believe you can justify the upload.
> 
> [1] https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html#transition
> [2] https://release.debian.org/testing/FAQ.html

I think we can close this bug. bookworm was released and we have updated
the list for trixie. If there is a need to update the list of toolchain
packages for trixie, please open a new bug.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: