On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 08:48:54 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Release team, here are some suggestions for binNMUs and other
> wanna-build interactions:
>
> Fixes for some earlier failures, and version skews caused by
> maintainer-built binaries not being discarded:
>
> # retry failed build wit
On 17/08/15 11:07, Matthias Klose wrote:
> There is now another test rebuild [2] done
> with an augmented dh_makeshlibs printing cxx11 symbols in libraries [3]. No
> new
> bug reports were filed yet.
...
> [2]
https://people.debian.org/~doko/logs/gcc5-20150813/archive-gcc-08-13-2015/
> [3] deb ht
On 08/21/2015 01:12 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 18/08/15 00:37, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:46:16PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>>> Having done more rebuilds in Ubuntu, it would be great if you could
>>> publish a complete list of the transitions you believe to be necess
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:12:40PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> hunspell is one notable exception, if it does indeed need renaming (I
> haven't verified)
It was already bin-NMUed without renaming 16d ago. That said, a testbuild
of LO with non-transitioned libs did NOT give me a build failur
On 18/08/15 00:37, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:46:16PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> Having done more rebuilds in Ubuntu, it would be great if you could
>> publish a complete list of the transitions you believe to be necessary
>
> Here's the count of source packages in Ubu
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 01:46:16PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I notice that Ubuntu has gone ahead with a lot of library renames. Did
> the Ubuntu developers doing these uploads test the results, or did you
> just "upload and hope"? One reason I have held back from doing more NMUs
> i
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 13:46:16 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I notice that Ubuntu has gone ahead with a lot of library renames. Did
> the Ubuntu developers doing these uploads test the results, or did you
> just "upload and hope"? One reason I have held back from doing more NMUs
> is that for t
On 17/08/15 11:07, Matthias Klose wrote:
> There seems to be a tendency to avoid transitions, where Debian doesn't have
> any
> reverse dependencies, or where developers analyze the library API's and come
> to
> the conclusion that no transition is necessary. I'm not yet sure if this is
> the
>
2015-08-17 12:47 GMT+02:00 Bastien ROUCARIES :
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Unstable now has GCC 5 as the default for more than two weeks. The
> follow-up
> > transitions are in progress, however the list of transitions at [1] is
> not
> > exhaustive, because this
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Unstable now has GCC 5 as the default for more than two weeks. The follow-up
> transitions are in progress, however the list of transitions at [1] is not
> exhaustive, because this only covered libraries without dependencies on
> libraries
Unstable now has GCC 5 as the default for more than two weeks. The follow-up
transitions are in progress, however the list of transitions at [1] is not
exhaustive, because this only covered libraries without dependencies on
libraries which need a transition. There is now another test rebuild [2] d
11 matches
Mail list logo
