Re: Bug#619988: transition: eglibc 2.13

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:05:57PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 Only four reverse-deps in the archive that have strict versioned deps on an
 upstream version of eglibc due to private symbols:  libnss-db, dante, libnih,
 unscd.  All leaf packages, currently up-to-date in testing, no entanglements
 with other current transitions.  Other packages may pick up versioned deps
 on libc 2.13 when uploaded and block other transitions temporarily while
 eglibc clears, but no two-way entanglement and eglibc 2.13 seems to have
 been rather thoroughly tested in experimental already so there's reason to
 believe the transition will be quick.
 
 Ack from me, please go ahead.
 

Thanks for the ack. Even if I think eglibc has been correctly tested, I
still expect a few bugs appearing when more people test the package. I
won't be able to do any real debugging from next Wednesday to Monday
25th (even if I will be online from time to time), so I am planning to 
do the upload around the 24th-25th. Of course if someone volunteer to 
take care of the bugs during that period, I can upload it earlier.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno  GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110417211434.ga32...@volta.aurel32.net

Bug#619988: transition: eglibc 2.13

[Aurelien Jarno]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

eglibc 2.13 is now in a good shape in experimental, it builds on all
release architectures plus at least hurd, sh4 and sparc64. It still
FTBFS on hppa, but the porters have been informed.

It's now time to upload it to unstable. The eglibc packages use symbol
files, so only packages using new symbols, and NSS related packages 
would pick up a new dependency and will have to wait until eglibc 2.13
migrates to testing. I am not aware of any big changes in include files
that can cause FTBFS, but I haven't done extensive tests either.

Please give your green light when you think it is possible to do the
upload to unstable.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.36-trunk-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



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20110328215726.27214.68495.report...@volta.aurel32.net