On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 02:27:25PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 07:52:06PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > X-Debbugs-Cc: a...@packages.debian.org > > Control: affects -1 + src:apt > > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: transition > > > > We'd like to do a transition of APT, not before January. We still have > > some ABI breaks to enqueue in the repo. My plan is to get the final > > bits in during xmas season. > > > > We have an issue where our ABI is not stable right now: We inadvertently > > re-export C++ standard library symbols, but our version script adds a > > version to them, and then ld at link time resolves references to > > libstdc++ functions to their apt ones in libapt-pkg reverse > > dependencies. We can fix this by hiding all std:: exports, which > > is WIP, but breaks the ABI more, so we just need to be a bit > > careful the next couple weeks. > > > > There's plausibly some minor API breaks (APT::StringView is replaced > > by std::string_view). Mostly I just desperately need to add a new field > > to a class, though. I usually fix all reverse dependencies as it's > > less than 10 or so. > > > > This should aid dist-upgrades hopefully, as the new libapt-pkg will > > be co-installable with the old one. > > > > Ben file: > > > > title = "apt"; > > is_affected = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64" | .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0"; > > is_good = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg7.0"; > > is_bad = .depends ~ "libapt-pkg6.0t64"; > > > I have uploaded 2.9.25+exp1 on the 22nd to experimental, and following > that 2.9.26+exp1 and 2.9.27+exp1; this is waiting on the ftpteam to > approve it, but every week with a new upload it gets rebased, so the > NEW list is misleadingly treating it as newer than it is and I'm afraid > people are not processing it.
APT 2.9.29+exp1 has now been accepted into experimental. We are more or less ready to go next week; I'm currently doing some test rebuilds in an Ubuntu PPA and will start the transition there on Monday. As far as I can tell, only packagekit and aptitude need sourceful changes, to accomodate return value of some functions changing to std::string_view. I can do team upload for aptitude and am also an uploader for packagekit, so this should go smoothly. Please let me know when I should proceed with the uploads in Debian. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
