Control: tags -1 moreinfo Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-abseil.html
On 2024-09-12 14:12:23 -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > X-Debbugs-Cc: abs...@packages.debian.org, Stefano Rivera <stefa...@debian.org> > Control: affects -1 + src:abseil > > I'd like to transition sid from Abseil 20230802 to Abseil 20240722. The new > version has a new ABI (with a new SONAME and new binary package names). > > Tests for 20240722.0-1 in experimental are green on all supported > architectures. > > A number of packages in sid depend directly on Abseil. To give early warning > of > breakages, I've done trial rebuilds as appropriate on the amd64 porterbox. > Packages that work fine with the new version: > > - dm-tree > - libgav1 > - libphonenumber > - mozc > - mujoco > - open-vm-tools > - protobuf > - re2 > - ycmd > > Packages that are broken by the new version: > > - falcosecurity-libs: FTBFS because it depends both on Abseil directly > and on Abseil via RE2, and the RE2 in unstable hasn't been built > against the new Abseil. > > - grpc: FTBFS because it depends both on Abseil directly and on Abseil > via Protobuf, and the Protobuf in unstable hasn't been built against > the new Abseil. > > - s2geometry: FTBFS because it hard-codes std=c+11 and the new version > requires -std=c++14 or later (https://bugs.debian.org/1059228) > > - webrtc-audio-processing: FTBFS because it relies on transitive > #includes that have changed > > Packages that I'm not sure about: > > - firebird4.0: has an active FTBFS (https://bugs.debian.org/1079523) > > - ortools: has an active FTBFS (https://bugs.debian.org/1024790) > > - libreoffice: too big to build on a porterbox, so left untested Thanks for doing the test builds. Do you also have test results for llvm-toolchain-{15,16,17,18,19}? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
