In exercising scripts for the mass NMUs in a dry run, I've run into another little snag.
$ grep -vEc '[0-9](c102|c2|g|ldbl|v5)?$' reports/runtime-libs 234 $ The package rename handling assumes that the affected runtime library packages have names matching a certain pattern (ends in a digit, plus a possible previous ABI qualifier). But 234 of the library patches don't match this pattern; some don't correspond to library sonames at all. Right off the bat, the first of these is 389-ds-base-libs. I don't want to rename it to '389-ds-base-libst64'. Also it turns out that there are no reverse-dependencies of this lib package. So I will omit this package from the transition. Others in this list have package names I don't understand, such as a 'd' suffix that doesn't correspond to anything in the soname, or libcoin80c. libdmtx0b and libvibrant6b at least have explanations in the changelog. So I guess I'll work on fleshing out a rename map for these. On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:57:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hello, > > Here is an updated analysis of the transition. This is based on a full > rerun on Debian unstable as of 2024-01-17 and includes a number of > incremental fixes reducing the number of libraries to be transitioned. > Though this is not particularly significant; the number of source packages > to be NMUed drops from 1197+51=1248 to 1192+50=1242, and the number of > source packages to be binNMUed drops from 5442+170=5610 to 5415+170=5585. > > It also picks up a small number of source packages (5) that are new to > unstable since last month. I have no strong opinion about forcing a package > name change for these, since they likely don't have any reverse-dependencies > yet with a significant install base on 32-bit archs; but by default they're > included. > > > Output files from the new analysis can be found here: > > https://adrien.dcln.fr/misc/armhf-time_t/2023-12-18/ > > I am not making the same mistake as before and attempting to attach all of > the various supplementary files, thus hitting email size limits. Instead, I > have pushed them all to: > > https://people.canonical.com/~vorlon/armhf-time_t/ > > > You may have noticed that it is now past the original proposed date of > 2024-01-18. This was a knowingly aggressive target date on which to try to > converge; there are still discussion subthreads in flight on debian-devel > that I want to make sure settle out before we proceed, and also Guillem let > me know there was a dpkg upload planned that would conflict, pushing this > back to Monday, 22 Jan at minimum. Based on capacity and availability, I > would like to now start uploads to experimental this Friday, 26 Jan. > > I do not know how long it will take to build all 1200+ source packages and > upload them. I assume it will take a few days at least. Once the > transition has started, I will post again to debian-devel with projections > of when we might expect to start landing changes in unstable. > > Attached is the current dd-list for the packages that would have sourceful > NMUs. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
