[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#881860: marked as done (transition: glibc 2.25)

Your message dated Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:54:34 +0100
with message-id <20171202095434.GB22226@aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#881860: transition: glibc 2.25
has caused the Debian Bug report #881860,
regarding transition: glibc 2.25
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 owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
881860: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=881860
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Dear release team,

I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.25. It is available
in experimental for more than two months, and there is no known
regression. It is currently available in experimental and has been built
successfully on all official architectures. For the debian-ports
architectures the situation is not good as it this version has never
been built successfully on alpha and powerpcspe. That said that can be
fixed later and I don't think we should block the transition on that.

As the 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
 - libnih
 - libnss-db
 - p11-kit
 - unscd

Here is the corresponding ben file:
  title = "glibc";
  is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
  is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.26\)/;
  is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.25\)/;

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. Most of them are libm.so to add support for
TS 18661-1:2014 math functions, but are currently unlikely to be picked
up by some packages. On the libc.so side, the explicit_bzero,
gententropy and getrandom might be picked up by a few packages.

Thanks for considering,
Aurelien

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.13.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE= (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2017-11-18 11:56, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi Emilio,
> 
> On 2017-11-17 18:14, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.25.html
> > Control: tags -1 confirmed
> > 
> > Hi Aurelien,
> > 
> > On 15/11/17 21:27, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > Severity: normal
> > > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > > Usertags: transition
> > > 
> > > Dear release team,
> > > 
> > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.25. It is available
> > > in experimental for more than two months, and there is no known
> > > regression. It is currently available in experimental and has been built
> > > successfully on all official architectures. For the debian-ports
> > > architectures the situation is not good as it this version has never
> > > been built successfully on alpha and powerpcspe. That said that can be
> > > fixed later and I don't think we should block the transition on that.
> > > 
> > > As the 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
> > >  - libnih
> > >  - libnss-db
> > >  - p11-kit
> > >  - unscd
> > > 
> > > Here is the corresponding ben file:
> > >   title = "glibc";
> > >   is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</;
> > >   is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.26\)/;
> > >   is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.25\)/;
> > > 
> > > 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. Most of them are libm.so to add support for
> > > TS 18661-1:2014 math functions, but are currently unlikely to be picked
> > > up by some packages. On the libc.so side, the explicit_bzero,
> > > gententropy and getrandom might be picked up by a few packages.
> > 
> > Let's do this.
> 
> Thanks, I have just uploaded it to sid.
> 

glibc 2.25 is now in testing, I am therefore closing the bug.

Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: