Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
On 2021-12-13 20:21:52 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2021-12-13 00:11, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On 2021-12-12 22:18, Paul Gevers wrote: > > > Hi Aurelien, > > > > > > On 12-12-2021 12:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > > Thanks, I'll add the necessary hints once the glibc upload is old > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > Those false positives are due to the fact that glibc from experimental > > > > is used, and I do not expect them to appear for glibc in sid. In > > > > addition a few of them after cruft got removed from experimental. > > > > > > > > All that said, we so many reverse dependencies, there might get more > > > > issues appearing. > > > > > > I just started to have a look, most issues I've checked so far look false > > > positives. But aribas on i386 wasn't tested for the glibc in experimental > > > (don't know why) but it fails now in unstable and tested with glibc from > > > unstable in testing with stack smashing: > > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/i386/a/aribas/17507755/log.gz > > > > It's likely an issue on the package, but without further investigating, > > I can't confirm. I'll try to do that tomorrow. > > I have opened bug#1001653 about it. I've filed bugs for the remaining autopkgtest regressions that were not caused by glibc (flaky tests, etc.) and then added a force-skiptest hint for glibc. Unless new issues pop up, it should migrate once it reaches 5 days. Cheers > > Aurelien > > -- > Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B > aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
On 2021-12-13 00:11, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2021-12-12 22:18, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Hi Aurelien, > > > > On 12-12-2021 12:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > Thanks, I'll add the necessary hints once the glibc upload is old > > > > enough. > > > > > > Those false positives are due to the fact that glibc from experimental > > > is used, and I do not expect them to appear for glibc in sid. In > > > addition a few of them after cruft got removed from experimental. > > > > > > All that said, we so many reverse dependencies, there might get more > > > issues appearing. > > > > I just started to have a look, most issues I've checked so far look false > > positives. But aribas on i386 wasn't tested for the glibc in experimental > > (don't know why) but it fails now in unstable and tested with glibc from > > unstable in testing with stack smashing: > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/i386/a/aribas/17507755/log.gz > > It's likely an issue on the package, but without further investigating, > I can't confirm. I'll try to do that tomorrow. I have opened bug#1001653 about it. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
On 2021-12-12 22:18, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Aurelien, > > On 12-12-2021 12:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > Thanks, I'll add the necessary hints once the glibc upload is old > > > enough. > > > > Those false positives are due to the fact that glibc from experimental > > is used, and I do not expect them to appear for glibc in sid. In > > addition a few of them after cruft got removed from experimental. > > > > All that said, we so many reverse dependencies, there might get more > > issues appearing. > > I just started to have a look, most issues I've checked so far look false > positives. But aribas on i386 wasn't tested for the glibc in experimental > (don't know why) but it fails now in unstable and tested with glibc from > unstable in testing with stack smashing: > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/i386/a/aribas/17507755/log.gz It's likely an issue on the package, but without further investigating, I can't confirm. I'll try to do that tomorrow. > How do we handle cross-toolchain-base? It seems to need a rebuild but I > didn't investigate if that can be just a binNMU or needs a source upload. That would do it, but unfortunately as it is arch:all, a binNMU is not possible. I'll ask for a new upload. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
Hi Aurelien, On 12-12-2021 12:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Thanks, I'll add the necessary hints once the glibc upload is old enough. Those false positives are due to the fact that glibc from experimental is used, and I do not expect them to appear for glibc in sid. In addition a few of them after cruft got removed from experimental. All that said, we so many reverse dependencies, there might get more issues appearing. I just started to have a look, most issues I've checked so far look false positives. But aribas on i386 wasn't tested for the glibc in experimental (don't know why) but it fails now in unstable and tested with glibc from unstable in testing with stack smashing: https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/i386/a/aribas/17507755/log.gz How do we handle cross-toolchain-base? It seems to need a rebuild but I didn't investigate if that can be just a binNMU or needs a source upload. Of to bed now. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
On 2021-12-11 15:28, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Control: tags -1 confirmed > Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.33.html > > On 2021-12-09 23:27:41 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: transition > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org > > > > Dear release team, > > > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.33. It has been > > available in experimental for one month and a half without any reported > > bug report. It has been built successfully on all release architectures > > and many ports architectures. > > Please go ahead. Thanks, I have just uploaded it. > > A few issues found through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for > > experimental have been fixed. The remaining are false positive, with the > > exception of kore, but which is not testing as it FTBFS. I submitted bug #1001558 for kore. > Thanks, I'll add the necessary hints once the glibc upload is old > enough. Those false positives are due to the fact that glibc from experimental is used, and I do not expect them to appear for glibc in sid. In addition a few of them after cruft got removed from experimental. All that said, we so many reverse dependencies, there might get more issues appearing. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
Control: tags -1 confirmed Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.33.html On 2021-12-09 23:27:41 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org > > Dear release team, > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.33. It has been > available in experimental for one month and a half without any reported > bug report. It has been built successfully on all release architectures > and many ports architectures. Please go ahead. > A few issues found through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for > experimental have been fixed. The remaining are false positive, with the > exception of kore, but which is not testing as it FTBFS. Thanks, I'll add the necessary hints once the glibc upload is old enough. Cheers > > 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. 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 > relatively limited in this version. > > A tracker is already setup at: > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.33.html > > Thanks for considering. -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1001438: transition: glibc 2.33
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org Dear release team, I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.33. It has been available in experimental for one month and a half without any reported bug report. It has been built successfully on all release architectures and many ports architectures. A few issues found through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for experimental have been fixed. The remaining are false positive, with the exception of kore, but which is not testing as it FTBFS. 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. 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 relatively limited in this version. A tracker is already setup at: https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.33.html Thanks for considering.
