Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.30.html Control: tags -1 confirmed
Hi Aurelien, On 08/02/2020 10:16, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Dear release team, > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.30. It is available in > experimental for 2 months and there are no known issues or regression. > It has been built successfully on all release architectures and most > ports architectures. It fails to build on hurd-i386 but it is already > fixed in git. It also fails to build on alpha, ia64 and sparc64 due > to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are > similar to existing failures in version 2.29. It doesn't build on > kfreebsd-*, but this has been the case for a few glibc releases already. > > 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 (some packages only on some architectures): > - apitrace > - bro > - dante > - gcc-9 > - gcc-10 > - gcc-snapshot > - libnih > - libnss-db > - unscd > > Ben file: > > Here is the corresponding ben file: > title = "glibc"; > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</; > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/; > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.30\)/; > > In addition a few new symbols have been added that might prevent a few > other packages to migrate to testing until glibc migrates if they pick > up the new symbols, however those are really limited in this version. Sorry for the delay. Please go ahead. Cheers, Emilio