Robert Edmonds wrote: > Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:00:35 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > > > > Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:19:49 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 16:57:30 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I will upload protobuf 2.5.0-5 to unstable shortly. Is there > > > > > > anything I > > > > > > need to do to schedule binNMUs of the reverse deps or is that > > > > > > handled by > > > > > > the release team? > > > > > > > > > > > Scheduled now. > > > > > > > > > And they started failing. At least ia64 and sparc look like protobuf > > > > itself being broken. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Julien > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd like to request binNMUs against protobuf 2.5.0-7. > > > > > Failed ia64 and sparc builds given back. > > OK, it looks like my changes in protobuf 2.5.0-6 / -7 did in fact break > the ABI from 2.5.0-5, based on the reports in #737246 and #737145. > > Would it be possible to binNMU protobuf's reverse deps on the other > architectures or would we need to do a SONAME bump? > > I am really sorry about this mess.
Actually, I'm still investigating this, please ignore my request for more binNMUs above. Chris Knadle's input in #737246 makes me believe that the changes in 2.5.0-6 / -7 just aren't correct. I'm thinking we should probably go back to the approach in 2.5.0-5 (though with a fallback atomic implementation for architectures where the default gcc is < 4.7). -- Robert Edmonds edmo...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140131201818.ga23...@mycre.ws
