Bug#1121762: transition: glibc 2.42
On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 12:06:31PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2025-12-07 07:56:03 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Based on buildinfo files, the following binNMUs are required for
> > #1122038 (insufficent package dependencies on i386):
> >
> > wb nmu asyncpg_0.30.0-1.1 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu 2 dante_1.4.3+dfsg-3.1 . ANY . sid . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)' . --extra-depends 'libc-bin (>= 2.42)'
> > wb nmu 2 dolfin_2019.2.0~legacy20240219.1c52e83-25 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu geary_46.0-9 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu gnome-builder_49.1-2 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu libdbd-pg-perl_3.18.0-3 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu libreoffice_26.2.0~beta1-1 . i386 . experimental . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu 1 mariadb_11.8.5-2 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu 1 mesa_25.2.8-2 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu 2 mshr_2019.2.0~git20230811.ff54a68+dfsg1-7 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu opendrop_3.3.2-3 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu petsc4py_3.24.1-2 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu 1 python3.13_3.13.11-1 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu 1 python3.14_3.14.2-1 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu shortwave_5.0.0-7 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu slepc4py_3.24.1-2 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu 2 starpu_1.4.10+dfsg-2 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
> > wb nmu storm_1.1-1 . i386 . -m 'Rebuild against glibc (>= 2.42-5)'
>
> Rescheduled those from the tracker with extra depends and to sync binNMU
> versions.
No one has so far scheduled most of the ones I found above.
Should I check and schedule myself what is still needed, or does someone
from the release team want to do that?
> Cheers
cu
Adrian
Reply to: