On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 07:15:21PM -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Monday, November 21 2022, I wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21 2022, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 06:32:39PM -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >>> Hello, > >> > >>> This is a heads up that the OpenLDAP 2.6 transition has started. I have > >>> just uploaded the package to lunar-proposed and will be performing > >>> no-change uploads to its reverse dependencies soon. > >> > >>> The list of packages that are going to be affected by this transition > >>> can be obtained by running: > >> > >>> $ reverse-depends -r lunar src:openldap > >> > >>> I did a mass-rebuild of said packages in a bileto PPA and everything > >>> looks good (aside from some unrelated FTBFSes). > >> > >> I would ask you to hold off right now on doing no-change rebuilds of any > >> packages currently in -proposed. There are in-progress language > >> transitions > >> for perl, python, and R, and rebuilding all the openldap language bindings > >> right now will entangle all of those transitions and likely make it harder > >> to get them migrated. > > > > Ah, no problem. It can wait. > > > >> Hopefully, the autopkgtest backlogs on arm64 and s390x will clear this week > >> and then we'll have a better view on what it takes to finish the above > >> in-progress transitions, and then rebuild anything still linking against > >> libldap-2.5-0. > > > > +1. Thanks, and enjoy your PTO. > Perl and Python have migrated, so I will go ahead with the no-change > uploads tomorrow. FWIW seeing that these hadn't been done yet and openldap had migrated (so all of the reverse-dependencies were on the NBS report), I went ahead and did uploads today of a filtered list of reverse-dependencies, excluding any of those that are currently in -proposed. Uploading those other packages won't cause entanglements between any remaining transitions, but it may slow down the migration of some of them, so I didn't upload them - but if you want to upload them now, there's no fundamental reason you can't. Remaining packages would be: Package gvm-libs already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) (Package gvm-libs not built in lunar-proposed) Package lua-apr already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) (Package lua-apr not built in lunar-proposed) Package openscap already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) Rebuilding openscap Rebuilding postgresql-14 Package sssd already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) (Package sssd not built in lunar-proposed) Package uwsgi already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) (Package uwsgi not built in lunar-proposed) Package virtuoso-opensource already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) (Package virtuoso-opensource not built in lunar-proposed) Package wine already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) (Package wine not built in lunar-proposed) Package wine-development already present in lunar-proposed (but not fixed) (Package wine-development not built in lunar-proposed) This also gives you the list of reverse-dependencies that FTBFS. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
