On 6/4/20 2:05 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2020-06-04 13:06, 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? > > Yes I can do that. Do you have a list available?
No.
