Hi, Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> (2024-03-21): > I'm a bit conflicted about what to do here. At the moment, libaio1-udeb > is the only udeb with t64 (at least according to the output of > `apt-file search -Iudeb t64`); but a rebuild of the reverse dependencies > would be sufficient (and might happen at some point anyway). > > For the sake of consistency, I think I'm tempted to suggest a revert of > the udeb part (it wasn't renamed so there's a contents vs. package name > mismatch anyway).
Checking libaio's changelog (last mail got sent a little too fast, sorry) is enlightening: this library required special attention and wasn't just about getting rebuilt with a different package name. https://tracker.debian.org/news/1509816/accepted-libaio-03113-6-source-into-unstable/ Guillem is absolutely right regarding avoiding the roundtrip to NEW and d-i's not caring, but some kind of heads-up to debian-boot@ (now cc'd) would have been welcome. It'd be nice if the Debian LVM Team (hello waldi) could pick it up from here and see whether requesting a binNMU is what makes most sense here, or if there other plans on the t64 front. A local, cowbuilder-powered rebuild of unstable's lvm2 results in udebs referencing libaio.so.1t64 as expected (i.e. libaio1t64's shlibs). Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
