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

Bug#1104206: marked as done (nmu: uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-java_0.0.5 uwsgi-plugin-lua_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-psgi_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-pypy_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-python_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-rados_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-php_0.0.15 uwsgi-plugin-luajit_0.0.8)

Your message dated Mon, 19 May 2025 00:13:13 +0200
with message-id <aCpbeSeCrt93tZzQ@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1104206: release team nudging regarding binNMU
has caused the Debian Bug report #1104206,
regarding nmu: uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-java_0.0.5 uwsgi-plugin-lua_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-psgi_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-pypy_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-python_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-rados_0.0.3 uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.2 uwsgi-plugin-php_0.0.15 uwsgi-plugin-luajit_0.0.8
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.)


-- 
1104206: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1104206
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:uwsgi-plugin-gccgo src:uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs src:uwsgi-plugin-java src:uwsgi-plugin-lua src:uwsgi-plugin-psgi src:uwsgi-plugin-pypy src:uwsgi-plugin-python src:uwsgi-plugin-rados src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby src:uwsgi-plugin-php src:uwsgi-plugin-luajit
X-Debbugs-Cc: uWSGI packaging team <pkg-uwsgi-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Severity: normal

Hi,

uwsgi.h has changed in the latest upstream, and externally built plugins need a
rebuild to be aligned with this change.

nmu uwsgi-plugin-gccgo_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-glusterfs_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-java_0.0.5 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-lua_0.0.2 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-luajit_0.0.8 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-psgi_0.0.2 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-pypy_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-python_0.0.2 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-rados_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-ruby_0.0.3 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"
nmu uwsgi-plugin-php_0.0.15 . ANY . unstable . -m "rebuild against latest uwsgi.h (API change)"

Thanks!
--
Some context for this construct (debian/README.source):

    Native package shipping build of upstream code
    ----------------------------------------------

    This is a Debian native package, yet is virtually empty and depends on
    and essentially builds from a *-src package from an upstream project.

    Reason for this construct is that the upstream project includes plugins
    for a wide range for programming languages and frameworks, causing
    headaches with transitions of those: By separating the build of each
    uwsgi plugin, changes to Perl ABI, MongoDB ABI, PHP ABI, etc. can
    transition independently of each other - and if a particular uwsgi
    plugin shows problematic for a transition then it can be dropped
    without affecting the rest of uwsgi.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2025-05-12 11:47:23 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> 
> Would be helpful if you could have a look at bug#1104206.
> 
> Damage of requiring a binNMU is already done, and reverting to older
> release will only miss a few bugfixes and look ugly and cost more time.
> The purpose of splitting the source into multiple packages was done to
> *simplify* transitions, not complicate them.
> 
> The binNMUs are all against *virtually the same* source package, as
> Alexandre have already pointed out, so I fail to see how that can be a
> dramatically risky affair to relink the code against itself.
> 
> It seems that Sebastian raising concerns about unreliable API resolving
> by the uWSGI source upstream is an issue independent of this binNMU
> request.

I have scheduled the binNMUS now so that reverse dependencies get their
piuparts tests unstuck. Please be aware that uwsgi is a key package so
it will need an unblock request to migrate.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: