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

Bug#1105908: marked as done (unblock: racket/8.16+dfsg1-2)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2025 08:42:42 +0000
with message-id <E1uGD7y-006MRt-1C@respighi.debian.org>
and subject line unblock racket
has caused the Debian Bug report #1105908,
regarding unblock: racket/8.16+dfsg1-2
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.)


-- 
1105908: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1105908
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: racket@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:racket
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package racket

[ Reason ]

Fixes binary names on armel

[ Impact ]

armel users will have to work around 1105013, e.g. by making symlinks or aliases.

[ Tests ]

I installed racket on armel and amd64 and ran some simple programs. On
amd64 I also ran the IDE drracket (written in racket), which is a pretty good smoke test.

[ Risks ]

This is a leaf package, and there are probably not many users on armel. The main risk is that the one line change somehow screwed things up on non-armel architectures. The change is (supposed to be) specific to armel, so that should be unlikely.

[ Checklist ]
  [x] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
  [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
  [x] attach debdiff against the package in testing

[ Other info ]

Due to architecture and autobuilder hardware limitations, armel is
currently the only user of the legacy "bc" backend for racket. In a sense this is bad, since that backend is less used. In this case it probably works in our favour, since the armel build  process is somewhat independent from the other architectures.

unblock racket/8.16+dfsg1-2

diff -Nru racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/changelog racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/changelog
--- racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/changelog	2025-03-18 08:16:05.000000000 +0900
+++ racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/changelog	2025-05-10 08:17:02.000000000 +0900
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+racket (8.16+dfsg1-2) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Bug fix: "wrong executable names on armel ('bc'; suffix)",
+    thanks to Philip McGrath (Closes: #1105013).
+
+ -- David Bremner <bremner@debian.org>  Sat, 10 May 2025 08:17:02 +0900
+
 racket (8.16+dfsg1-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * Update to new upstream version 8.16+dfsg1.
diff -Nru racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/rules racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/rules
--- racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/rules	2025-03-18 08:16:05.000000000 +0900
+++ racket-8.16+dfsg1/debian/rules	2025-05-10 08:17:02.000000000 +0900
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 PB64B:=--enable-pb --enable-mach=tpb64b
 PB64L:=--enable-pb --enable-mach=tpb64l
 CONFIG_ARGS_alpha   :=$(PB64L)
-CONFIG_ARGS_armel   :=--enable-bc --disable-docs
+CONFIG_ARGS_armel   :=--enable-bconly --enable-bcdefault --disable-docs
 CONFIG_ARGS_hppa    :=$(PB32B)
 CONFIG_ARGS_mips64el:=$(PB64L)
 CONFIG_ARGS_powerpc :=$(PB32B)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Unblocked.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: