2017-08-30 23:26 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <po...@debian.org>:
> 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. > I've tried building with g++-6 but there is one test failure. I'm looking why this is. Jérémy
