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

Bug#1038820: marked as done (transition: glibc 2.37)

Your message dated Fri, 7 Jul 2023 22:26:40 +0200
with message-id <ZKh1AGJCYRse5MhX@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1038820: transition: glibc 2.37
has caused the Debian Bug report #1038820,
regarding transition: glibc 2.37
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.)


-- 
1038820: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1038820
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-glibc@lists.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:glibc

Dear release team,

I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.37. It has been
available in experimental for a bit more than a month and does not have
any known issue. It has been built successfully on all release
architectures and many ports architectures (technically 2.37-2 hasn't
been built yet on mipsel and mips64el due to the buildds lagging, but
2.37-1 has been built successfully).

As 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. Here is the corresponding ben file:

  title = "glibc";
  is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
  is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.38\)/;
  is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.37\)/;

Only a single symbol has been added to 32-bit architectures using non
64-bit time_t (i.e. for release architectures: armel armhf mipsel). This
symbol is only used when building packages with -D_TIME_BITS=64, so its
usage is very limited. 64-bit architectures do not have new symbols.
Therefore it's very unlikely that glibc 2.37 blocks the migration of
other packages to testing during the transition. 

Thanks for considering.

Regards,
Aurelien

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2023-07-01 14:16:54 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> On 2023-07-01 10:14, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.37.html
> > Control: tags -1 confirmed
> > 
> > On 2023-06-21 20:53:54 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > Severity: normal
> > > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > > Usertags: transition
> > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-glibc@lists.debian.org
> > > Control: affects -1 + src:glibc
> > > 
> > > Dear release team,
> > > 
> > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.37. It has been
> > > available in experimental for a bit more than a month and does not have
> > > any known issue. It has been built successfully on all release
> > > architectures and many ports architectures (technically 2.37-2 hasn't
> > > been built yet on mipsel and mips64el due to the buildds lagging, but
> > > 2.37-1 has been built successfully).
> > 
> > Please go ahead.
> 
> Thanks, I have just uploaded it.

glibc mirated.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: