Your message dated Wed, 22 May 2013 12:26:05 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#708092: transition: eglibc
has caused the Debian Bug report #708092,
regarding transition: eglibc
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
708092: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=708092
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: transition
The eglibc transition has already started, but given a few packages have
to be rebuilt against the new libc, I thought it was a good idea to
open a bug.
The packages using private glibc symbols (with GLIBC_PRIVATE versioning)
get a strong dependency on the major libc version, ie something like
libc6 (>> 2.13), libc6 (<< 2.14). These packages should be rebuild
against the new eglibc to get the new dependency libc6 (>> 2.17),
libc6 (<< 2.18).
These are the following source packages:
- dante
- db1-compat
- libnih
- libnss-db
- unscd
Ben file:
title = "eglibc";
is_affected = (.depends ~ "libc[0136\.]* (<< 2.14)") | (.depends ~
"libc[0136\.]* (<< 2.18)")
is_good = .depends ~ "libc[0136\.]* (<< 2.18)"
is_bad = .depends ~ "libc[0136\.]* (<< 2.14)"
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.8-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:08:16 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The eglibc transition has already started, but given a few packages have
> to be rebuilt against the new libc, I thought it was a good idea to
> open a bug.
>
> The packages using private glibc symbols (with GLIBC_PRIVATE versioning)
> get a strong dependency on the major libc version, ie something like
> libc6 (>> 2.13), libc6 (<< 2.14). These packages should be rebuild
> against the new eglibc to get the new dependency libc6 (>> 2.17),
> libc6 (<< 2.18).
>
eglibc | 2.17-3 | testing | source
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
