Your message dated Fri, 23 Dec 2022 23:21:35 +0100
with message-id <y6yp7xzqvpv9k...@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1023535: transition: protobuf
has caused the Debian Bug report #1023535,
regarding transition: protobuf
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 ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1023535: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1023535
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi RMs,
There's a long awaited transition of Protobuf. It clashes with the
ruby3.1-default transition, but as I know its rebuilds are just
starting[1].
On the other hand I'm done with the rebuilds and patched all issues,
this transition may start immediately at your decision. The only
downside is that the Sid version of cura-engine is FTBFS and to fix
it, the libarcus transition (only affecting this package) will need to
be done.
Failing packages and fixes in detail.
Level 2:
android-platform-frameworks-base has my patch already applied [2] for
experimental (not Sid!).
libarcus builds in Sid, but not the version in experimental for which
I provided a fix [3].
target-factory changed library symbols [4], maintainer will need to update that.
Level 3:
cura-engine fails with the Sid version [5], with the libarcus
transition done it compiles fine.
grpc-java for which I provided the fix [6], the maintainer noted he
will be ready to update the package.
llvm-toolchain-13 for which I provided the fix [7], other problems
seem to be fixed with the upload just happened.
llvm-toolchain-14 for which I also provided the fix [8], its other
problem [9] might be wrongly closed by cross referenced
llvm-toolchain-15 package - but Sylvestre Ledru seems to be aware of
issues anyway.
Thanks for considering,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/1023495#5
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/1012572
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/1023497
[4] https://bugs.debian.org/1023496
[5] https://bugs.debian.org/1023498
[6] https://bugs.debian.org/1023500
[7] https://bugs.debian.org/1023532
[8] https://bugs.debian.org/1023532
[9] https://bugs.debian.org/1023444
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2022-11-25 07:38:36 +0100, László Böszörményi wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:03 PM Sebastian Ramacher <sramac...@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > On 2022-11-21 20:42:41 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > Please go ahead
> >
> > protobuf's autopkgtests are failing. Could you please take a look at
> > them? Thanks
> Indeed, my bad. Fixed and uploaded.
The old binaries got removed from testing. Closing
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---
