Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1012610

Bug#961195: transition: glibc

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.org@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.

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#961195: transition: glibc Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2020-05-21 11:50 +0200
  Bug#961195: transition: glibc Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2020-06-04 13:10 +0200
    Bug#961195: transition: glibc Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2020-06-04 13:50 +0200
    Bug#961195: transition: glibc Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2020-06-04 14:10 +0200
      Bug#961195: transition: glibc Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2020-06-04 14:20 +0200
        Bug#961195: transition: glibc Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2020-07-04 00:20 +0200
          Bug#961195: transition: glibc Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2020-07-27 08:00 +0200
            Bug#961195: transition: glibc Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2020-07-27 10:00 +0200
  Bug#961195: transition: glibc Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> - 2020-07-13 20:00 +0200
  Bug#961195: transition: glibc Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> - 2020-07-13 21:50 +0200
  Bug#961195: transition: glibc Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org> - 2020-07-27 11:30 +0200

csiph-web