Hi, On 2025-04-10 07:37, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Hello fellow developers,
[ Snip ] > Question 1: Do you see important aspects missed in this analysis? No > Question 2: Do you agree that this change is worth the effort? I don't know. I do not see a huge benefit from the glibc point of view, but I understand that it could be a benefit for other parts of Debian. As long as these other part leads the effort that sounds good. > Assuming "no" and "yes" as answers, I'd like to proceed with mass bug > filing. I propose severity normal for all bugs. The additional > dependencies can be piggy-backed onto uploads aimed for trixie as their > risk of causing breakage is really low. For the perl-related changes we > might skip filing the bugs and consider mass-committing the changes for > a later upload. The glibc change must not be done during the trixie > cycle, but can happen early in the forky one. At that point, the > remaining bugs would become RC. It seems to me that this way of doing might block glibc development, ie prevent glibc from migrating to testing for many weeks, as I guess it will causes autopkgtest failures in addition to FTBFS. I think we should proceed with the change on the glibc side once we know that the bugs can be be solved *in testing* in a reasonable time frame. This could mean massive NMUs to fix the remaining issues (but this could be seen as aggressive). An other option is to upgrade the severity to serious before the change on the glibc side, which should remove most unfixed packages from testing within 1 month, and the remaining packages can be fixed through NMU. > Question 3: Can I move forward with the MBF? Sounds good to me. Whatever is decided, having an explicit dependency is always better, than relying on de facto build-essential. Regards Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
