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 <linux/sockios.h> fixes these.
