On 20/11/15 12:57, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 20 November 2015 at 11:45, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > | On 09-11-15 18:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > | > On 06/11/15 15:06, Bas Couwenberg wrote: > | >> Package: release.debian.org > | >> Severity: normal > | >> User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > | >> Usertags: transition > | >> Forwarded: https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-gsl.html > | >> > | >> An uncoordinated transition to GSL 2.0 has started in unstable. > | >> > | >> It caused nco to FTBFS and I suspect other reverse dependencies will > | >> likewise need to be updated to build successfully with gsl (2.0+dfsg-1). > | >> > | >> The automatically created transition tracker is already available. > | >> > | >> The maintainer is CC'ed. > | > > | > Any idea how many packages fail to build against the new version? Not > speaking > | > of how many need to change the build dependencies from libgsl0-dev (>= > x.y) to > | > libgsl-dev, but of build failures in all the rdeps due to API changes. > | > | I haven't tested any gsl rdeps other than those maintained by the Debian > | GIS team, and those rebuilds are already available in unstable. > | > | Can we binNMU the remaining rdeps and see what breaks? > > Sounds good to me.
No, as I said that won't work as long as libgsl0-dev is still around, because right now any build attempt will install that together with the old library, instead of the new libgsl-dev and the new library. That's because real packages are preferred over virtual ones. And I didn't want to request its removal until I know how many packages will fail to build. > | Or should Dirk or someone else first rebuild the rdeps themselves before > | this transition can move on? > > Do you happen to have a list of what has / has not rebuilt? See https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gsl.html Emilio
