Bug#829145: transition: glibc 2.23
On 2016-07-01 09:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 01/07/16 01:41, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> >
> > Dear release team,
> >
> > We would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.23. It is currently
> > available in experimental and has been built successfully on all
> > official architectures except hurd-i386. We have fixed the hurd-i386
> > failure in out git, and we are working on build failures for alpha, hppa
> > and sparc64. There are due to testsuite issue, mostly in the math parts
> > and do not look very critical.
> >
> > It should be noted that this upload will make a few packages to FTBFS,
> > mostly due to more precise checking in the floating-point classification
> > macros (isnan, isinf, ...). In most of the cases the changes just make
> > existing bugs visible. The list of affected packages is available [1]
> > (thanks to Martin Michlmayr), and the bugs have been opened for more
> > than 3 months.
> >
> > As the glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
> > said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
> > rebuilt for this transition:
> > - apitrace
> > - bro
> > - dante
> > - libnih
> > - libnss-db
> > - unscd
> >
> > Here is the corresponding ben file:
> >
> > title = "glibc";
> > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
> > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.24\)/;
> > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.23\)/;
> >
> > In addition to that, a few new symbols have been added that might
> > prevent a few other packages to transition to testing if they pick up
> > the new symbols, namely the fts64_* and the lgamma* ones. It should not
> > concerns many packages.
>
> Go ahead.
It has just been accepted by dak.
Cheers,
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: