On 29/08/17 23:15, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 06/25/2017 01:15 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: >> Now stretch is released we can deal with this. >> >> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:49:33AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: >>> Transition should have minimal impact on these addons. >>> Most other pure Node.js modules should be okay - they either >>> are already compatible with Node.js 6 or have upstream updates >>> providing that compatibility. >> >> This sounds rather, well, hopeful. Please stage the transition in >> experimental first, and test/fix reverse dependencies. Then come back and >> we'll schedule a time to do it in unstable. >> >> (Transitions should really be ready to go by the time they come to us; >> they should also be able to happen quickly, because a blocked transition >> holds up all sorts of other work.) > > Jérémy, the transition was started by the upload of nodejs to unstable, > but you've not replied to the above yet. > > Can you confirm that all reverse dependencies build successfully with > the new nodejs in unstable? > > If so, the binNMUs can be scheduled to move this transition along.
The problem is the nodejs mips64el failure, caused by the mips64el gcc-7 bug (#871514). I'm waiting for that to be fixed first. Cheers, Emilio
