Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.35.html
On 2022-09-14 22:17:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org > > Dear release team, > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.35. It has been > available in experimental for one month and does not have any known > major issue. It has been built successfully on all release architectures > and many ports architectures. A few issues found through the autopkgtest > pseudo excuses for experimental have been fixed. The remaining ones are > due to britney bugs, broken autopkgtest or packages parts of the > transition. > > 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. Here is the corresponding ben file: > > title = "glibc"; > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<</; > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.36\)/; > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.35\)/; > > 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 and > mostly linked to the new math functions introduced for ISO C2x support, > so unlikely to be massively used by default. Therefore overall this > transition should be way simpler than the glibc 2.34 one. > > Thanks for considering. Let's start with this one after the udeb block is lifted and the D-I alpha is done. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
