Hi! On Thu, 2024-03-21 at 23:13:31 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > 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.
Ah, sorry, the heads-up part didn't cross my mind, as I guess I assumed transitory breakage was expected as part of that transition, and that it would auto-heal after the release-team would trigger the necessary binNMUs. Will try to have that in mind in the future. (I'll do so as well once/if I revert the libaio SONAME bump, even though there I'd be planning to add backwards compatibility symlinks if the ABI does not change from what upstream accepts.) Thanks, Guillem
