Processed: debhelper: dh_installman error instead of warning on invalid section
Processing control commands: > affects -1 src:esys-particle Bug #962253 [src:debhelper] debhelper: dh_installman error instead of warning on invalid section Added indication that 962253 affects src:esys-particle > block 961995 by -1 Bug #961995 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-defaults 961995 was blocked by: 962252 960413 959573 960427 960412 960418 948122 960416 959463 949837 955581 954711 960414 962173 959417 962251 959437 960378 959479 959480 962229 954351 960383 960422 959439 953871 960426 948127 962070 960385 955579 954649 960424 962086 960500 953873 948407 960381 948281 960421 958156 954648 960331 961995 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 961995: 962253 -- 961995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961995 962253: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962253 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: orthanc-mysql FTBFS with boost1.71
Processing control commands: > block 961995 by -1 Bug #961995 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-defaults 961995 was blocked by: 962229 948127 953871 960413 962070 960331 960378 955579 962086 960421 948122 962173 948281 959439 959437 959463 953873 960416 960427 960426 960418 960385 954711 960414 959479 960424 955581 960381 962251 959480 960412 960422 948407 958156 959573 959417 949837 960383 954649 954351 960500 954648 961995 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 961995: 962252 -- 961995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961995 962252: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962252 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: hugin: libboost-signals-dev no longer exists with boost1.71
Processing control commands: > block 961995 by -1 Bug #961995 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-defaults 961995 was blocked by: 960416 962173 962229 959480 960421 954648 960412 958156 953871 953873 959417 959479 949837 960424 960378 954711 960500 960427 948122 959437 955581 960418 960414 959463 960383 960381 962086 948281 955579 960331 959439 959573 960426 960413 954649 954351 948127 960385 948407 960422 962070 961995 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 961995: 962251 -- 961995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961995 962251: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962251 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#961836: transition: openbabel
On 2020-06-05 01:39, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > openbabel and the binNMus migrated. Thanks for noticing! Best, Andrius signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#962155: stretch-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1
Thanks again, uploaded to mentors: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates https://bugs.debian.org/962245 -- Kind regards, Michael
Bug#962152: buster-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1
Thank you. Uploaded to mentors: RFS: ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1 [RC] -- Common CA certificates https://bugs.debian.org/962244 -- Kind regards, Michael
Bug#961836: marked as done (transition: openbabel)
Your message dated Fri, 5 Jun 2020 00:39:59 +0200 with message-id <20200604223959.gb930...@ramacher.at> and subject line Re: Bug#961836: transition: openbabel has caused the Debian Bug report #961836, regarding transition: openbabel 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.) -- 961836: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961836 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 Hello, I would like to request a transition slot for openbabel (experimental -> unstable). Current ben tracker [1] is fine. Transition affects two packages in testing: v-sim and xdrawchem. They build successfully without patching, thus binNMUing them will be sufficient. Best, Andrius [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-openbabel.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2020-05-30 08:17:10 +0300, mer...@debian.org wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Hello, > > I would like to request a transition slot for openbabel (experimental -> > unstable). Current ben tracker [1] is fine. > > Transition affects two packages in testing: v-sim and xdrawchem. They > build successfully without patching, thus binNMUing them will be sufficient. openbabel and the binNMus migrated. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#960753: marked as done (transition: yara)
Your message dated Fri, 5 Jun 2020 00:34:03 +0200 with message-id <20200604223403.ga930...@ramacher.at> and subject line Re: Bug#960753: transition: yara has caused the Debian Bug report #960753, regarding transition: yara 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.) -- 960753: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=960753 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 Dear release team, the libyara3 -> libyara4 transition is necessary due to the simple SONAME bump due to incompatible API and ABI changes. There are two reverse dependencies, python-yara and libguestfs both of which I maintain. libguestfs can already be built against with yara/4 and python-yara/4.x will be uploaded at the same time as yara/4. Ben file: title = "yara"; is_affected = .depends ~ "libyara3" | .depends ~ "libyara4"; is_good = .depends ~ "libyara4"; is_bad = .depends ~ "libyara3"; Cheers, -Hilko --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2020-05-17 10:48:24 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Hi Hilko > > On 2020-05-16 14:55:37 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Control: forwarded -1 > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-yara.html > > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > > > > On 2020-05-16 12:17:11 +0200, Hilko Bengen wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > > Severity: normal > > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > > Usertags: transition > > > > > > Dear release team, > > > > > > the libyara3 -> libyara4 transition is necessary due to the simple > > > SONAME bump due to incompatible API and ABI changes. There are two > > > reverse dependencies, python-yara and libguestfs both of which I > > > maintain. libguestfs can already be built against with yara/4 and > > > python-yara/4.x will be uploaded at the same time as yara/4. > > > > Go ahead. > > The uploaded of yara 4.0.1-1 contained binaries for amd64 and all. > Please perform a source only upload so that yara will be able to migrate > to testing. That happend and yara migrated. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature --- End Message ---
Bug#962237: buster-pu: package perl/5.28.1-6+deb10u1
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
As per #962234 for stretch and my remarks on #961443 I'd like to
uploaded a targeted fix for these no-dsa security issues:
https://metacpan.org/pod/release/XSAWYERX/perl-5.28.3/pod/perldelta.pod
We can come back to #961443 when we're happy that the upgrade issues
have been solved.
Cheers
Dominic
diff --git a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/01local-client-v4.t
b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/01local-client-v4.t
index 7ab7156993..f6aeac4c3b 100644
--- a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/01local-client-v4.t
+++ b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/01local-client-v4.t
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ use Test::More;
use IO::Socket::IP;
use IO::Socket::INET;
-use Socket qw( inet_aton inet_ntoa pack_sockaddr_in unpack_sockaddr_in );
+use Socket qw( inet_aton inet_ntoa pack_sockaddr_in unpack_sockaddr_in
AI_NUMERICHOST );
# Some odd locations like BSD jails might not like INADDR_LOOPBACK. We'll
# establish a baseline first to test against
@@ -29,12 +29,14 @@ foreach my $socktype (qw( SOCK_STREAM SOCK_DGRAM )) {
LocalHost => "127.0.0.1",
Type => Socket->$socktype,
Proto => ( $socktype eq "SOCK_STREAM" ? "tcp" : "udp" ), # Because
IO::Socket::INET is stupid and always presumes tcp
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
) or die "Cannot listen on PF_INET - $@";
my $socket = IO::Socket::IP->new(
PeerHost=> "127.0.0.1",
PeerService => $testserver->sockport,
Type=> Socket->$socktype,
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
);
ok( defined $socket, "IO::Socket::IP->new constructs a $socktype socket" )
or
diff --git a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/02local-server-v4.t
b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/02local-server-v4.t
index c0d349f573..fb711f08bd 100644
--- a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/02local-server-v4.t
+++ b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/02local-server-v4.t
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ use Test::More;
use IO::Socket::IP;
use IO::Socket::INET;
-use Socket qw( inet_aton inet_ntoa pack_sockaddr_in unpack_sockaddr_in );
+use Socket qw( inet_aton inet_ntoa pack_sockaddr_in unpack_sockaddr_in
AI_NUMERICHOST );
# Some odd locations like BSD jails might not like INADDR_LOOPBACK. We'll
# establish a baseline first to test against
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ foreach my $socktype (qw( SOCK_STREAM SOCK_DGRAM )) {
LocalHost => "127.0.0.1",
LocalPort => "0",
Type => Socket->$socktype,
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
);
ok( defined $testserver, "IO::Socket::IP->new constructs a $socktype
socket" ) or
diff --git a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/03local-cross-v4.t
b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/03local-cross-v4.t
index 8cac72a95b..3e8174ee08 100644
--- a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/03local-cross-v4.t
+++ b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/03local-cross-v4.t
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ use warnings;
use Test::More;
use IO::Socket::IP;
+use Socket qw(AI_NUMERICHOST);
foreach my $socktype (qw( SOCK_STREAM SOCK_DGRAM )) {
my $testserver = IO::Socket::IP->new(
@@ -13,12 +14,14 @@ foreach my $socktype (qw( SOCK_STREAM SOCK_DGRAM )) {
LocalHost => "127.0.0.1",
LocalPort => "0",
Type => Socket->$socktype,
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
) or die "Cannot listen on PF_INET - $@";
my $socket = IO::Socket::IP->new(
PeerHost=> "127.0.0.1",
PeerService => $testserver->sockport,
Type=> Socket->$socktype,
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
) or die "Cannot connect on PF_INET - $@";
my $testclient = ( $socktype eq "SOCK_STREAM" ) ?
diff --git a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/11sockopts.t b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/11sockopts.t
index 5b850924dd..28daada89f 100644
--- a/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/11sockopts.t
+++ b/cpan/IO-Socket-IP/t/11sockopts.t
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ use Test::More;
use IO::Socket::IP;
use Errno qw( EACCES );
-use Socket qw( SOL_SOCKET SO_REUSEADDR SO_REUSEPORT SO_BROADCAST );
+use Socket qw( SOL_SOCKET SO_REUSEADDR SO_REUSEPORT SO_BROADCAST
AI_NUMERICHOST);
TODO: {
local $TODO = "SO_REUSEADDR doesn't appear to work on cygwin smokers" if
$^O eq "cygwin";
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ TODO: {
Type => SOCK_STREAM,
Listen=> 1,
ReuseAddr => 1,
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
) or die "Cannot socket() - $@";
ok( $sock->getsockopt( SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR ), 'SO_REUSEADDR set' );
@@ -32,6 +33,7 @@ TODO: {
Sockopts => [
[ SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR ],
],
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
) or die "Cannot socket() - $@";
ok( $sock->getsockopt( SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR ), 'SO_REUSEADDR set via
Sockopts' );
@@ -50,6 +52,7 @@ SKIP: {
Type => SOCK_STREAM,
Listen=> 1,
ReusePort => 1,
+ GetAddrInfoFlags => AI_NUMERICHOST,
) or die "Cannot socket() - $@";
ok( $sock->getsockopt( SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEPORT ), 'SO_REUSEPORT set' );
@@ -62,6 +65,7 @@ SKIP: {
LocalHost => "127.0.0.1",
Type => SOCK_DGRAM,
Broadcast =
Processed: orthanc-postgresql FTBFS with boost1.71
Processing control commands: > block 961995 by -1 Bug #961995 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-defaults 961995 was blocked by: 960413 960418 958156 962070 960414 960427 960381 955579 953873 948281 962086 955581 948407 960378 948127 960424 959480 959439 960422 960421 949837 959479 954711 960426 960331 960500 962173 959463 959417 948122 959573 960412 960383 960416 954648 959437 954351 960385 954649 953871 961995 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 961995: 962229 -- 961995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961995 962229: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962229 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#962227: buster-pu: package libapache-mod-jk/1:1.2.46-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: buster User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Dear release team, I would like to fix Debian bug #928813 in Buster. Stretch is not affected. Due to wrong file naming the configuration file for libapache-mod-jk was not installed into the mods-enabled directory of Apache 2 when a2enmod was used. Please find attached the debdiff. Regards, Markus diff -Nru libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/changelog libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/changelog --- libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/changelog2018-10-14 12:26:05.0 +0200 +++ libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/changelog2020-06-04 21:18:07.0 +0200 @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +libapache-mod-jk (1:1.2.46-1+deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium + + * Rename httpd-jk.conf to jk.conf to restore compatibility with Debian's Apache +helpers a2enmod and a2dismod. (Closes: #928813) + + -- Markus Koschany Thu, 04 Jun 2020 21:18:07 +0200 + libapache-mod-jk (1:1.2.46-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream version 1.2.46. diff -Nru libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.install libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.install --- libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.install2018-10-14 12:26:05.0 +0200 +++ libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.install2020-06-04 21:18:07.0 +0200 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -conf/httpd-jk.conf /etc/apache2/mods-available/ +conf/jk.conf/etc/apache2/mods-available/ debian/jk.load /etc/apache2/mods-available/ debian/workers.properties /etc/libapache2-mod-jk/ native/apache-2.0/mod_jk.so /usr/lib/apache2/modules/ diff -Nru libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.links libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.links --- libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.links 2018-10-14 12:26:05.0 +0200 +++ libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/libapache2-mod-jk.links 2020-06-04 21:18:07.0 +0200 @@ -1 +1 @@ -/etc/apache2/mods-available/httpd-jk.conf /etc/libapache2-mod-jk/httpd-jk.conf +/etc/apache2/mods-available/jk.conf /etc/libapache2-mod-jk/httpd-jk.conf diff -Nru libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/rules libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/rules --- libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/rules2018-10-14 12:26:05.0 +0200 +++ libapache-mod-jk-1.2.46/debian/rules2020-06-04 21:18:07.0 +0200 @@ -24,5 +24,9 @@ # No check target override_dh_auto_test: +override_dh_install: + mv $(CURDIR)/conf/httpd-jk.conf $(CURDIR)/conf/jk.conf + dh_install + get-orig-source: uscan --verbose --download-current-version --force-download
Bug#961439: buster-pu: package clamav/0.102.3+dfsg-0+deb10u1
On 2020-06-01 18:52:49 [+0100], Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Were you assuming that libclamunrar would also be in that set, or just > clamav itself? Please go ahead with Clamav. I will ping the libclamunrar bug once it got through NEW. > Regards, > > Adam Sebastian
Bug#962155: stretch-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 16:41 -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: > ca-certificates (20200601~deb9u1) stretch; urgency=medium > >* Rebuild for stretch. >* Merge changes from 20200601 > - d/control >* This release updates the Mozilla CA bundle to 2.40, blacklists > distrusted Symantec roots, and blacklists expired "AddTrust > External > Root". Closes: #956411, #955038, #911289, #961907 >* Fix permissions on /usr/local/share/ca-certificates when using > symlinks. > Closes: #916833 > Please go ahead. Regards, Adam
Processed: Re: Bug#962152: buster-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + confirmed Bug #962152 [release.debian.org] buster-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 962152: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962152 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#962155: stretch-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + confirmed Bug #962155 [release.debian.org] stretch-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb9u1 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 962155: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962155 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#962152: buster-pu: package ca-certificates/20200601~deb10u1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 16:14 -0500, Michael Shuler wrote: > ca-certificates (20200601~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium > >* Rebuild for buster. >* Merge changes from 20200601 > - d/control; set d/gbp.conf branch to debian-buster >* This release updates the Mozilla CA bundle to 2.40, blacklists > distrusted Symantec roots, and blacklists expired "AddTrust > External > Root". Closes: #956411, #955038, #911289, #961907 Please go ahead. Regards, Adam
Processed: Re: Bug#962160: buster-pu: package pagekite/0.5.9.3-2
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + confirmed Bug #962160 [release.debian.org] buster-pu: package pagekite/0.5.9.3-2 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 962160: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962160 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#962160: buster-pu: package pagekite/0.5.9.3-2
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 20:50 -0700, Sunil Mohan Adapa wrote: > This update proposes to fix bug #961984. Pagekite shipped > certificates internally which are now expired (as of 2020-05-31). All > users of Pagekite are unable to use the package securely as it can no > longer make TLS connections to frontend servers. This update makes > Pagekite use Debian certificate database > instead of internal certificates (by shipping an additional > configuration file). +pagekite (0.5.9.3-2+deb10u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium + + * Fix issue with expired internal certificates. Use +Debian certificates instead of internal certificate. (Closes: #961984) The distribution there needs to be "buster". With that changed, please go ahead. Regards, Adam
Bug#947979: enchant -> enchant-2 transition
# We don't want to ship two enchants in bullseye. Dear maintainers, # you can lower the severity until December 2020 if you have a plan to # fix the issue before the bullseye transition freeze, but please # document that in the bug in case you do. severity 956710 serious severity 951143 serious severity 951271 serious severity 956700 serious severity 954855 serious severity 956691 serious severity 956680 serious severity 951140 serious thanks signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#961195: transition: glibc
On 6/4/20 2:05 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2020-06-04 13:06, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 5/21/20 11:39 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >>> 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 2.31. It is available in >>> experimental for more than 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 ia64 and sparc64 due >>> to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are >>> similar to existing failures in version 2.30. 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: >>> - apitrace >>> - bro >>> - dante >>> - gcc-9 (s390x only) >>> - libnih >>> - libnss-db >>> - r-bioc-preprocesscore >>> - unscd >>> >>> Compare to the previous transition, gcc-10 and gcc-snapshot got removed, >>> and r-bioc-preprocesscore got added. >>> >>> Here is the corresponding ben file: >>> title = "glibc"; >>> is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<>> is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.32\)/; >>> is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/; >>> >>> 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. >> >> there are dozens of packages that ftbfs with this new version. Please could >> you >> at least file bug reports for all of those? > > Yes I can do that. Do you have a list available? No.
Bug#961195: transition: glibc
On 2020-06-04 13:06, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 5/21/20 11:39 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > 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 2.31. It is available in > > experimental for more than 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 ia64 and sparc64 due > > to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are > > similar to existing failures in version 2.30. 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: > > - apitrace > > - bro > > - dante > > - gcc-9 (s390x only) > > - libnih > > - libnss-db > > - r-bioc-preprocesscore > > - unscd > > > > Compare to the previous transition, gcc-10 and gcc-snapshot got removed, > > and r-bioc-preprocesscore got added. > > > > Here is the corresponding ben file: > > title = "glibc"; > > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(< > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.32\)/; > > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/; > > > > 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. > > there are dozens of packages that ftbfs with this new version. Please could > you > at least file bug reports for all of those? Yes I can do that. Do you have a list available? Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Bug#961195: transition: glibc
On 6/4/20 1:06 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 5/21/20 11:39 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> 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 2.31. It is available in >> experimental for more than 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 ia64 and sparc64 due >> to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are >> similar to existing failures in version 2.30. 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: >> - apitrace >> - bro >> - dante >> - gcc-9 (s390x only) >> - libnih >> - libnss-db >> - r-bioc-preprocesscore >> - unscd >> >> Compare to the previous transition, gcc-10 and gcc-snapshot got removed, >> and r-bioc-preprocesscore got added. >> >> Here is the corresponding ben file: >> title = "glibc"; >> is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<> is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.32\)/; >> is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/; >> >> 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. > > there are dozens of packages that ftbfs with this new version. Please could > you > at least file bug reports for all of those? this is about the missing SIOCGSTAMP macro. So maybe jsut triggered by a removed glibc include? Including fixes these.
Bug#961195: transition: glibc
On 5/21/20 11:39 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > 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 2.31. It is available in > experimental for more than 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 ia64 and sparc64 due > to a few testsuite issues that need to be investigated and which are > similar to existing failures in version 2.30. 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: > - apitrace > - bro > - dante > - gcc-9 (s390x only) > - libnih > - libnss-db > - r-bioc-preprocesscore > - unscd > > Compare to the previous transition, gcc-10 and gcc-snapshot got removed, > and r-bioc-preprocesscore got added. > > Here is the corresponding ben file: > title = "glibc"; > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(< is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.32\)/; > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.31\)/; > > 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. there are dozens of packages that ftbfs with this new version. Please could you at least file bug reports for all of those?
Processed: Re: Bug#961443: buster-pu: package perl/5.28.2
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #961443 [release.debian.org] buster-pu: package perl/5.28.3 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 961443: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961443 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#961443: buster-pu: package perl/5.28.2
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:14:27AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > Further to the above, we now have a no-dsa security issue to push out > to buster (and stretch, but we prefer a more traditional approach there > because of the relative size of changes and age of the release). > > The security issues in question are tracked at #962005. > > I attach the additional diff between 5.28.2 and 5.28.3 (which was > purely a security release) - again, excluding doc and version churn. > > Please do let me know if you would be okay with this approach, and > we can get the ball rolling. We're no longer proposing this approach for the immediate update pending concerns around smooth upgrades (cf #962138). We expect this an be fixable but in the meantime I'm temporarily withdrawing the proposal. Expect to see a regular point release proposal with cherry-picks shortly (for both buster and stretch). Best Dominic
Processed: wsjtx: hard-codes boost 1.67
Processing control commands: > block 961995 by -1 Bug #961995 [release.debian.org] transition: boost-defaults 961995 was blocked by: 960427 960424 955579 948127 962086 960381 960500 960385 959480 960412 959417 948281 960383 960331 958156 960414 959439 959479 954351 960422 960418 959437 948122 960421 960416 962070 953871 955581 949837 960378 960413 954711 954648 954649 953873 959463 948407 959573 960426 961995 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 961995: 962173 -- 961995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961995 962173: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=962173 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
